N6134019R0020_STIGS_Pre-AWARD_QuestionsandAnswers_18Dec18.pdf

N61340-19-R-0020 Pre-Award Questions and Answers 18-Dec-18

Question Number

Subject (title) Question Answer Question Reference (SOW, L&M, Page #s, etc)

Proprietary (Yes or No)

0001 Simulation Software Will the United States Government (USG) allow for an “OR EQUAL” bridge simulation software, particularly, if it improves capabilities, and includes Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) and reusability?

The Government is not clear on what's being asked here. If it's related to a ship bridge, that doesn't seem directly applicable to the scope of work for STIGS. Furthermore, STIGS currently doesn't have a requirement for distributed missions. If the question is related to "bridging" capabilities between different software products, the Government needs further clarification on the question.

General No

0002 Simulation Software Will the USG provide the existing simulation content and an Interface Control Document (ICD) as Government Furnished Information (GFI)/ Government Furnished Equipment

(GFE)?

The Government does not have an ICD for the existing Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Engineering Plant Technician (EPT‐3) course. The existing LCS EPT‐3 software was already provided to offerors that requested it and provided the Government with a hard drive to load the software. For the Full Authority Digital Control Local Control Panel (FADC LOCOP) trainer and Gas Turbine Generator (GTG) immersive courseware, since these are new efforts, the Government currently doesn't have an ICD or other simulation content applicable to these efforts.

General No

0003 Simulation Software Will the USG provide the existing hydrographic models and port terrain as GFI/GFE? This is not relevant to the STIGS scope of work. Any existing models for LCS EPT were provided to the offerors that requested it and provided the Government with a hard drive.

General No

0004 Subcontractor Past Performance

As of 11/29/18, the Government was still reviewing whether or not subcontractor past performance would be allowed. Has the Government made a final determination as to whether or not subcontractor past performance will be allowed for the Surface Training Immersive Gaming and Simulations (STIGS) solicitation?

Subcontractor past performance will be allowed if that subcontractor is completing at least 20% of the total effort and will be limited to two records.

The only subcontractor past performance that can be submitted must be of the same scope the subcontractor will be performing for the prime contractor for STIGS. Please note that this (e.g. the number of records and percentage) is subject to change as the solicitation is finalized.

Section L&M No

0005 Contract Management Approach

Does the Government intend to require a STIGS contract management approach as part of the proposals in order to assess the offeror's Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) management capability?

The Government intends to require an overarching design approach and design for meeting certain requirements from the Specifications of the first Delivery Order (DO), but does not intend on requiring a STIGS overall contract management approach in Section L&M of the solicitation. However, one aspect of this design approach will be the design and configuration of the software baseline throughout performance.

Section L&M No

0006 GTG Immersive Courseware Curriculum

Will the Government be providing the existing curriculum with the complete set of learning objectives and related requirements?

Yes, the GTG immersive courseware requirements will be documented in a Performance Specification. The GTG existing curriculum materials and learning objectives will also be provided as part of the final Request for Proposal (RFP).

Industry Day slides, slide 15, bullet 3, sub‐bullets 2 and 3

No

0007 GTG Immersive Courseware Final PCA

Will the Government clarify why a Final Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) would be required for the GTG Immersive Courseware?

The computers that host the current curriculum at Naval Station (NS) Great Lakes do not have the capacity to host the immersive courseware that will be added as a result of STIGS. Furthermore, the existing computers are in need of a tech refresh. Under STIGS, the GTG immersive courseware requirement will include the procurement and delivery of a new set of computers to host the updated curriculum. The final PCA is in place to verify the as‐built configuration of the new computers.

Industry Day slides, slide 22, last row in table

No

0008 First DO CLS Periods First DO Contractor Logistics Support (CLS): Contract Option: Contractor to provide on‐call and on‐site support following turnover of each first DO trainer to the Contractor Operation and Maintenance of Simulators (COMS) for a period not to exceed two (2) months. Is it correct to assume this only applies to the FADC LOCOP Trainer?

No, the current intent is to include the CLS period as an option for each first DO trainer that is delivered (FADC LOCOP trainer, LCS‐5 EPT courseware, and GTG immersive courseware).

Industry Day slides, slide

No

Question and Answer Form

0009 GTG Immersive Courseware Logistics Conferences and Reviews

Will the Government clarify why a Logistics Guidance Conference (LGC) and Provisioning Item Selection Conference (PISC) would be required for GTG Immersive Courseware?

The computers that host the current curriculum at NS Great Lakes do not have the capacity to host the immersive courseware that will be added as a result of STIGS. Furthermore, the existing computers are in need of a tech refresh. Under STIGS, the GTG immersive courseware requirement will include the procurement and delivery of a new set of computers to host the updated curriculum. The LGC and PISC are in place to cover logistics requirements and potential spares associated with the new computers.

Industry Day slides, slide

No

0010 Anticipated Evaluation Factors

Are we correct to assume that the Small Business (SB) Utilization Goal will be assessed on total subcontracted value rather than total contract value? Are we correct to assume that the pass/fail evaluation gate for this criteria will be made based on evidence provided of our ability to meet the SB utilization goal over the life of the contract?

The SB utilization goal will be assessed on total contract value (ceiling amount), not subcontracted value. Yes, the pass/fail evaluation gate will be based on evidence provided to meet the SB utilization goal over the life of the contract. If the offeror cannot demonstrate they will meet the goal, then their proposal will be determined unacceptable. The final language will be reflected in Section L&M.

Industry Day slides, slide

No

0011 Gyrus Learning Management System (LMS)

The referenced paragraph states: “Gyrus Learning Management System (LMS) is currently planned to be integrated with the LCS courseware system.” Will the Gyrus LMS be provided as Government Furnished Software (GFS)?

No, Gyrus LMS will not be provided as GFS. The LMS integration requirements will be DO‐specific. This statement in question will be removed from Statement of Work (SOW) 180005.

SOW 180005, page 1, paragraph 1.2.a

No

0012 Earned Value Management As required in an individual DO, the contractor shall establish, control, maintain, and apply an integrated performance management system compliant with the industry guidelines for Earned Value Management System (EVMS) described in SAE/EIA 748‐C for Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). Does the Government anticipate CPFF DO’s greater that $20M to require EVMS to be implemented?

If there was to be a CPFF DO greater than $20M, EVMS would be required.

The Government does not currently anticipate a CPFF DO greater than $20M for STIGS. However, should an effort arise above this threshold, the offeror must be able to comply with any EVM requirements.

SOW 180005, page 16, paragraph 3.2.1.10

No

0013 Release of Draft Section L&M Will the Government release a draft Section L&M prior to final RFP release? That is the Government's current intention. The Government is currently finalizing the Section L&M requirements, which will have to go through multiple internal reviews. We expect to release a draft around mid to late January 2019. There is a potential that there will be a narrow window between DRAFT RFP and Final RFP so that it can be as technically accurate as possible. The focus of Section L&M will be on what is most important to the Government with the objective of reducing the “creative writing” aspect for the contractor in developing its proposal.

Industry Day Question No

0014 Baseline of STIGS using other programs

Is there any possibility of technology being baselined in Ready Relevant Learning (RRL), Multipurpose Reconfigurable Training System (MRTS), or any additional programs?

STIGS is separate from RRL and MRTS for now. It can not be determined if they will merge in the future. The level of fidelity and type of training is different from STIGS, and the configuration management is different.

Industry Day Question No

0015 Gaming Engine Is there a gaming engine that would be favorable? The Government is not mandating a particular gaming engine. The requirement will be to meet the performance requirements of the contract and it will be up to the contractor to weigh the pros and cons to meet the Government's goals and objectives in selecting a gaming engine to use.

Industry Day Question No

0016 Common Baseline One of the delivery orders is to have a common baseline. Any thought on how that integrates with what has been previously developed?

For STIGS, the contractor will have to develop a new baseline. How much of existing content that is reused is up to the contractor. The Government recommends the contractor review the data that exists and decide as a company. Yes, we are leveraging those products, but the goal is to establish a new set of products.

Industry Day Question No

0017 Sub‐category goals in Small Business Utilization

Will there be any sub‐category goals, such as woman‐owned, in the small business utilization plan?

Just the pass/fail gate, no sub‐categories established at this point. Industry Day Question No

0018 Government Furnished Equipment

Are assets available as GFE? 3D assets? Scanning systems? 3D max files? The Government intends to release GFI, but not any computers as GFE. Yes on the 3D assets, because the Government is releasing this information on disks/hard drives. The Government will provide all data we have rights to, including all examples of current immersive courseware.

Industry Day Question No

0019 Definition of Principal Subcontractor

Define what you mean by the principal subcontractor. It will be defined by either a dollar amount or percentage of the total contract value.

Industry Day Question No

0020 Past Performance Periods Regarding the 5‐year window for past performance of the prime contractor, is that window from the time of final RFP release?

The Government is still discussing and finalizing that detail, which will be released at a later date. Note ‐ update to verbal response at industry day ‐ the time period will likely be for 3 years from time of final RFP release.

Industry Day Question No

0021 Execution of Future DOs Will future DOs be priced independently? Yes, future DOs will be negotiated. The Government will work with the winning contractor to establish a proposal/negotiation process to be able to execute future DOs quickly.

Industry Day Question No

0022 Release of GFI The Government mentioned that GFI would be available by final RFP release. Does the incumbent contractor already have access to that information?

All information that the Government has rights to was provided to all offerors that requested and provided a contractor‐supplied hard drive. The intent of releasing the courseware on the hard drives now was so that all offerors have the software now.

Industry Day Question No

0023 STAVE Concept The Government mentioned that STIGS is under Surface Training Advanced Virtual Environment (STAVE)? What is the significance of that?

The Navy (OPNAV N96) established the STAVE program in 2013 by incorporating previously developed Immersive Virtual Ship Environment (IVSE) devices and improving the IVSE concept to include part‐task hands‐on physical training devices where required, and instructor‐led learning for all new training curriculum and planned updates for other ship classes in the Fleet. There were three major mission areas in this effort, Hull Mechanical and Electrical (HM&E), Navigation, and Combat Systems Operations.

Numerous STAVE training devices and courses began delivering in 2014.

STAVE products have been programmed to deliver and support Surface platforms well into 2024 as existing courses are modernized and new systems arrive in the Fleet. The Navy intends to establish requirements for a complete, sustainable and well documented suite of training systems that reuse existing STAVE training products and incorporate new systems, simulations, models and courseware content. For the STAVE program, the Navy's goal is to support the life cycle of the training system including repair, maintenance, upgrades and modifications to the maximum extent and at the point of need without having to rely on the Original Equipment Manufacture or the original developer.

Industry Day Question No

0024 Common Standards Any influence on if you are trying to design to a common standard under STAVE? Should the contractor look at other STAVE programs for guidance?

For STIGS, the focus should be on the requirements of the STIGS contract, not

STAVE.

Industry Day Question No

0025 Courseware Durations For the LCS EPT and GTG courseware, does the Government know the number of hours of courseware to be developed for these two efforts?

The Government will not be ordering this courseware by hours. The current LCS‐3 EPT course takes about 4 months from start to finish to complete. It is anticipated that the LCS‐5 EPT course required under STIGS will have a similar duration, but will take place on a new ship. For GTG, the current curriculum is a 30‐day course that includes a mixture of traditional Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI) and hands‐on training. The entire GTG curriculum will not become immersive courseware under STIGS, so it will be some portion of the existing 30‐day course.

Industry Day Question No

0026 Common Baseline How broad is the common baseline architecture requirement? Is the vision for the common framework comprehensive over the continuum of training?

It depends on the requirement. For example, for trainers that share technology, it is expected that those products be common (i.e., a common gaming engine). If a trainer does not require a certain technology such as a gaming engine, for example, to meet the Specification, then it will not utilize that aspect of the common baseline.

Industry Day Question No

0027 Innovation Opportunities Any particular areas where the Government will be looking at innovation? For section L&M, the Government's intent is to try to focus on areas that the Government sees the most value. There is some opportunity for innovation here. Other areas for innovation are up to the contractor.

Industry Day Question No

0028 LCS‐5 EPT Courseware Approach

Is the requirement to augment the current EPT course that exists or replace it? The requirement is for a new LCS‐5 EPT course. The existing EPT course will be provided and it is up to the contractor to determine their approach to meet the requirements.

Industry Day Question No

0029 LOCOP Trainer Software It is assumed that the existing LOCOP trainer at Great Lakes uses embedded software. Is that something that would be provided as GFI?

The Government does not intend on providing this as GFI. Industry Day Question No

0030 LCS‐3 EPT Courseware Is the courseware used in today's demonstration provided on the contractor hard drive? Yes. The LCS‐3 EPT course was provided on each contractor‐provided hard drive.

Industry Day Question No

0031 LCS‐3 EPT Demo Are there any audible cues when the student does something right? Naturalistic feedback for the most part, but there is a "ding" to complement correct actions.

Industry Day Demo Question

No

0032 LCS‐3 EPT Demo Is the three monitor setup typical for the students? Yes Industry Day Demo Question

No

0033 LCS‐3 EPT Demo Is the headset specific to virtual reality or regular? Regular headset Industry Day Demo Question

No

0034 LCS‐3 EPT Demo Is there only one path through this exercise? There is a standard set of instructions (Engineering Operational Sequencing System (EOSS)) that you have to follow step‐by‐step. This course is all scripted and lock‐step.

Industry Day Demo Question

No

0035 LCS‐3 EPT Demo Is this course only available in the schoolhouse or something that the students can take with them, such as a tablet?

Only in the schoolhouse. Part of the problem with using a tablet is the three monitors.

Industry Day Demo Question

No

0036 LCS‐3 EPT Demo What does the testing look like? Is it embedded or classroom based? Within the environment, the student has their performance evaluated. There are also knowledge‐based tests that the instructor implements every few weeks.

Industry Day Demo Question

No

0037 LCS‐3 EPT Demo Do you do much with the test and performance data? The ability to export and use the data lies with the instructor. Industry Day Demo Question

No

0038 LCS‐3 EPT Demo LMS is not collecting data right now? The course doesn't talk to the LMS, but there is the ability to export the data.

They can get the student data down to the step level.

Industry Day Demo Question

No

0040 LCS‐3 EPT Demo Sailors come out of this course completely qualified? There is onboard Personnel Qualification Standard (PQS), but this course takes the sailor to about the 90% level. The idea is to be completely trained to qualify, but no Commanding Officer (CO) will sign‐off on that, it's more train to accelerate qualification.

Industry Day Demo Question

No

0041 LCS‐3 EPT Demo Does the courseware track performance for unguided? Yes, and they are allowed to ask for hints, up to 10%. It can do instructor flags. Instructors can see how they are doing and if they fail, the instructors can override the grade. Some of the procedures can be pretty long.

Otherwise, they have to do the whole thing again.

Industry Day Demo Question

No

0042 LCS‐3 EPT Demo Can you pull up the drawings as well as EOSS procedures? Yes, with grease pencil availability. There is an after action review that is recording all that is happening so that the students and instructors can review after.

Industry Day Demo Question

No

0043 FADC LOCOP variants How many variants of the FADC LOCOP must be accounted for in the development of the Virtual FADC LOCOP? What are the itemized list of variants of the FADC LOCOP? How and when will the technical data for each variant of the FADC LOCOP be provided to offerors?

The FADC LOCOP trainer Specification requires three variants (configurations with ECP 301‐01A‐C139, ECP 310‐01A‐C156, and ECP 310‐01A‐C161). These are the variants of FADC LOCOP that are planned as of right now. Sufficient technical data in the form of a redacted Ship Service Gas Turbine Generator (SSGTG) technical manual will be provided to support proposals, with the complete technical data provided to the winning contractor.

FADC LOCOP PRF19xxxx, page 1, paragraph 1.1, page 5, paragraph 3.1.3.2.1.b

No

0044 FADC LOCOP O&M courseware Do the requirements for FADC LOCOP Operation And Maintenance (O&M) courseware differ between the LCS engineering and Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG) engineering trainees/staff? If so, when will the Government provide the technical data to offerors?

The FADC LOCOP O&M immersive courseware does not teach LCS engineering. All available technical data related to the FADC LOCOP O&M immersive course will be provided as part of final RFP.

Site Visit Information (Instructions)

No

0045 FADC LOCOP Aural Cues ‐ relative volume

The Specification requires an aural cueing system representative of the SSGTG. Are actual ship‐level volumes, which require use of hearing protection, required?

The volume of the SSGTG sound is required to be loud enough to require hearing protection. The Specification also requires the ability to adjust the volume levels.

FADC LOCOP PRF19xxxx, page 6, paragraph 3.1.3.3

No

0046 FADC LOCOP Original Hardware removal

The Specification requires that the virtual/simulated FADC LOCOP be physically located on the SSGTG essentially where the real equipment was/is. Will the Government be removing the tactical components prior to assignment of the GFE to the Contractor, or should that activity be included in our assumptions and pricing?

The contractor is required to remove and turn over the existing tactical equipment associated with the FADC LOCOP.

FADC LOCOP PRF19xxxx, page 5, paragraph 3.1.3.1.d

No

0047 Learning Management System

(LMS)

Are learning management records expected to translate outside the boundary of the school house? What is the current LMS currently utilized at the school house into which these records are to be stored? Are the records expected to be automatically populated using data from the training database, or is it a manual transfer? If automatic, is it an Application Programming Interface (API) or service message that is used to request/pull the data from the student record database? What are the training record store interface specifications? What are the DSS/LCS Certification Requirements for the FADC LOCOP?

What are the DSS/LCS Qualification Requirements for the FADC LOCOP?

LMS records are required to be translated outside the boundary of the school house, but it will be a manual transfer not automatic online. The current LCS EPT‐3 LMS utilized at the school house is proprietary, but it's based on a Microsoft SQL database server. Integration between the courseware and LMS will be required. The API required for the integration will be based on xAPI.

There is no train to certify/qualify requirements for FADC LOCOP, that is specific to LCS.

General No

0048 IOS Location The SPEC requires an Instructor Operating Station (IOS). No indication is given whether this should be separate from the LOCOP assembly. Is there sufficient room at the intended training site to locate the IOS on the opposite side of the trainee controls of the LOCOP, as part of the overall trainer structure?

For the FADC LOCOP trainer, the contractor is required to conduct a trainer site survey and choose and present the location of the IOS to the Government for approval during the Systems Engineering Technical Reviews (SETR) process.

FADC LOCOP PRF19xxxx, page 6, paragraph 3.1.3.4

No

0049 EOSS Display Location The Specification requires separate touchscreen for EOSS Procedure selection and display.

No indication is given whether this should be separate from the LOCOP assembly. Can the “Observe” Human Machine Interface (HMI) touchscreen of the LOCOP (right side screen) be utilized for this purpose?

For the FADC LOCOP trainer, EOSS procedures will be separate and not located anywhere on the trainer (i.e., either a print out or on a tablet). The Specification will be revised to clarify for final RFP.

FADC LOCOP PRF19xxxx, page 6, paragraph 3.1.3.2.3

No

0050 Wireless Technology for IOS and EOSS

The SOW indicates the Omnibus level Cybersecurity requirements are Targets of Evaluation Low‐Impact Group A (LIG‐A). The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Training Systems Domain Guide referenced by the SOW indicates that for LIGA Target of Evaluation (TOE) there are no restrictions on utilizing wireless capabilities. Is it acceptable to the Government that the IOS and/or EOSS be implemented with handheld devices utilizing wireless technology?

The NAVAIR Training Systems Domain Guide (TSDG) establishes basic criteria for unclassified training systems to qualify as part of the Omnibus Standalone Unclassified Training Systems (OSUTS). System must meet TOE LIG‐A "Additional Criteria." Under LIG‐A criteria, wireless technologies are NOT allowed. Meaning a training system hosting wireless will NOT qualify for the

OSUTS.

SOW 180005, page 20, paragraph 3.2.3.1

No

0051 FADC LOCOP Maintenance and Troubleshooting of the panel

How will the SSGTG technicians and operators be using the virtual FADC LOCOP model and courseware: To train troubleshooting and repair of the FADC LOCOP panel itself to repair onsite using ships force? To train operation and basic fault identification of the FADC LOCOP itself for repair by other than ships force? To train detailed troubleshooting and repair of the associated SSGTG to repair onsite using ships force? To train operation and securing of the associated SSGTG for diagnosis and repair of the associated SSGTG by other than ships force?

For the FADC LOCOP trainer, the technicians and operators will be using the trainer to train operation and basic fault identification of the FADC LOCOP itself for repair by other than ship's force. For the GTG immersive courseware, the technicians and operators will be using the courseware to learn operation, troubleshooting, immediate actions, but not detailed repair.

All the learning objectives for the immersive courseware will be provided as part of the final RFP.

SOW 180005, page 1, paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2.b, and PRF 19xxxx, page 4, paragraph 3.1.1

No

0052 FADC LOCOP Haptic Requirements

The right side FADC LOCOP push button switches require a haptic feel when activated / deactivated by operators of the SSGTG, but if virtually represented, what is the expectation of the trainer? Paragraph 3.3.2.1.a indicates that items may be physical or virtually simulated, but the FADC LOCOP should be a virtual device. Does the customer desire: A virtual representation of just the FADC LOCOP screens and gauges and realistic physical right side switches? A virtual representation of the FADC LOCOP screens and a virtual representation of the switches and gauges?

For the FADC LOCOP trainer, the haptic feel and force of the physical switches and gauges is not required. The location and functionality of the physical switches is required with a virtual representation desired. The Specification will be updated to clarify in final RFP.

PRF 19xxxx, page 5, paragraph 3.1.3.2.1.a

No

0053 LCS EPT Virtual Environment Modeling

The first Delivery Order requires immersive courseware for the LCS‐5 EPT to include new immersive courseware and new virtual ship 3‐D models. Does the customer desire: A virtual representation of the main engineering plant space only where the EPT primarily stands watch (containing the SSGTG and diesel engines)? A virtual representation of all areas of the ship that may contain engineering equipment that may need to be accessed by the EPT or other withstanders during the course of the operation of the engineering aspects of the LCS during a watch (Damage Control Central (DCC), passageways between spaces, aft steerage, fuel tank sounding, etc.)?

The intent is to develop a 3‐D virtual ship model of the entire LCS‐5 ship on the first DO. The Specification will provide additional information on the detail and level of fidelity required for the ship spaces.

LCS EPT‐5 SPEC No

0054 FADC LOCOP courseware correlation to DDG Flight IIA GTG courseware

Will the FADC LOCOP courseware for use at Great Lakes be incorporated as part of the DDG Flight IIA GTG immersive courseware?

Yes, the GTG immersive courseware will be integrated into the existing DDG Flight IIA GTG course.

GTG Immersive Courseware SPEC

No

0055 FADC LOCOP courseware correlation to LCS‐5 EPT courseware

Will the FADC LOCOP courseware for use at Great Lakes be incorporated as part of the LCS‐5 EPT immersive courseware?

No, LCS EPT is its own unique requirement. General No

0056 SSGTG Virtual Representation Resolution

The Specification states that the virtual FADC LOCOP shall simulate aspects of an associated SSGTG operation and troubleshooting. Does the customer desire: A virtual representation of an SSGTG external portion of the enclosure allowing looking into the enclosure windows for lights on / off and viewing the running / secured SSGTG but no ability to enter the SSGTG enclosure? Meaning the training capability for FADC LOCOP SSGTG will fulfill operation and basic troubleshooting only? A virtual representation of an SSGTG enclosure allowing looking into the enclosure for lights on / off, viewing the running / secured SSGTG, and modeling each temperature / pressure sensor and electrical connection on the SSGTG from the FADC LOCOP to the SSGTG? Meaning the training capability for SSGTG operation, troubleshooting, and repair of the SSGTG to the sensor / connector level? A virtual representation of an FADC LOCOP external portion of the enclosure allowing looking at the enclosure screens for starting / stopping / securing SSGTG but no ability to enter the FADC LOCOP enclosure? Meaning the training capability for FADC LOCOP SSGTG operation and basic troubleshooting of the attached SSGTG using the screen data of the FADC LOCOP only? A virtual representation of an FADC LOCOP external portion of the enclosure allowing looking at the enclosure screens for starting / stopping / securing SSGTG but no ability to enter the FADC LOCOP enclosure as well as allowing opening and looking into the enclosure for connectors, wiring, MPMCS internal components and modeling each temperature / pressure sensor electrical connection on the back of the FADC LOCOP to the SSGTG? Meaning the training capability for FADC LOCOP and SSGTG operation, troubleshooting, and repair of the SSGTG and the FADC LOCOP to the sensor / connector level?

For the FADC LOCOP trainer, the requirement is for operation and basic troubleshooting of the SSGTG locally from the FADC LOCOP.

PRF 19xxxx, page 5, paragraph 3.1.3.2.1.a

No

0057 Computational Assets What are the specifications of the existing IOS, instructor, and student workstations? For LCS EPT‐5: CPU: INTEL CORE I7‐4770, RAM: 16 GB, Graphics Card: ASUS Radeon R9 290X, Hard Drive: 1 TB Samsung SSD 850, NIC: 1000BASE‐T, Headset: Plantronics GameCom 780

Site Visit Information (Instructions)

No

0058 Learning Management System

(LMS)

What Learning Management Systems do you plan on using to host courseware? Will Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD) continue to use the Gyrus LMS for STIGS?

The Government will not mandate a specific LMS; however, the LMS integration requirements will be DO‐specific. The reference to Gyrus LMS in SOW 180005 will be removed.

General No

0059 Development Tool What development tool is (was) used to produce courseware for levels 1 through 3 interactivity? If there is no current required development tool, is the offeror limited to any specific type of development tool by NAWCTSD?

There is not a single development tool that was used to develop all levels of courseware. In the previous contract, there was not a requirement to provide the Government with the developmental tools used. The offeror is not limited to a specific type of development tool, but non‐proprietary tools are preferable. The immersive courseware will not be ordered by levels of interactivity.

General No

0060 Source File Format What format are the source files for levels 1 through 3 courseware? Is there any restriction on format type?

There is not a single source file format that was used. In the previous contract, there was not a requirement to provide the Government with the source file format used. The offeror is not limited to a specific type of source file format, but non‐proprietary tools are preferable (will be discussed in Section L&M).

General No

0061 Development Tool What development tool is (was) used to produce courseware for level 4 interactivity? If there is no current required development tool, is the offeror limited to any specific type of development tool by NAWCTSD?

There is not a single development tool that was used. In the previous contract, there was not a requirement to provide the Government with the developmental tools used. The offeror is not limited to a specific type of development tool, but non‐proprietary tools are preferable (will be discussed in Section L&M).

General No

0062 Source File Format What format are the source files for level 4 courseware? Is there any restriction on format type?

There is not a single source file format that was used. In the previous contract, there was not a requirement to provide the Government with the source file format used. The offeror is not limited to a specific type of source file format, but non‐proprietary tools are preferable (will be discussed in Section L&M).

General No

0063 Source File Availability Will the source files be available? The LCS EPT‐3 source files for which the Government has rights to were provided to all offerors that requested it and supplied a hard drive.

General No

0064 Price Reasonableness In the Draft RFP for Advanced Computer‐based Training System (ACTS), NAWCTSD used the following two paragraphs to address price reasonableness: 3.5 Price Reasonableness.

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. It is expected that this contract award decision will include a determination that there is adequate price competition and that the proposed prices are reasonable. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the government to determine reasonableness. 3.7 Price Realism Analysis: The government will perform a price realism analysis of Delivery Order 0001 by using the offeror’s proposed labor categories and labor hours set forth in the offeror’s Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and Technical Basis of Estimate (TBOE) for Delivery Order 0001 multiplied by the offeror’s fully‐burdened labor rates set forth in the offeror’s Resource Allocation Matrix. Will the government consider using similar language for the

STIGS RFP?

The Government's intent is to evaluate price reasonableness, but not price realism. The final language will be reflected in Section L&M.

Section L&M No

0065 IMI Level IV Courseware complexity issues

The Sources Sought Announcement (11/8/17) under STIGS Required Capabilities (Paragraph 4.a, 4.b, and 4.c) discuss content creation that appears to require at least the capability to develop IMI Level IV Courseware, but indeed could even be more complex.

4.a. “...the development of new and modification of existing courseware, simulations and associated models much train (at any level of IMI) complex simulation features such as courseware that trains non‐linear/reactionary procedures and courseware that trains complex motor skills to control physics‐based simulated equipment. 4.b. Simulations are expected to provide fully interactive, scenario‐based, and free play watch station functionality. 4.c. Courseware and simulations are expected to provide a combination of individual, sub‐team and team training.” Sections 3.1.8 and 3.1.9 of the STIGS Basic ID/IQ SOW discuss development of new or modification of existing IMI/Instructor Led Training (ILT) but do not discuss the above factors from the sources sought. Will the Government consider adding these realistic, complex training requirements for qualification standards from the Sources Sought into the final STIGS SOW?

The Government will take this into consideration. Please refer to the final

RFP.

Sources Sought Announcement (11/8/17) and SOW 180005, paragraphs 3.1.8 and 3.1.9

No

0066 Ability to address Level IV IMI In the Sources Sought Announcement (11/8/17) under STIGS Required Capabilities (Paragraph 4.a, 4.b, and 4.c): Will the Government consider requiring the contractor to develop content above Level IV IMI where expansion to multiple personnel would be required for any sub‐team or watch team training OR if (in the instance of multi‐plant ships) multiple plants or spaces were to be trained simultaneously? This would be specifically required for casualty control or ship wide involvement.

Immersive courseware will not be ordered by levels of interactivity. Please refer to the SOW for further clarification.

Sources Sought Announcement (11/8/17)

No

0067 Contractor Developed Simulation Software

SOW, Page 1, Section 1.2 mentions “other contractor developed simulation software.”

Please verify that this software will be made available to all offerors.

The Government will provide all simulation software for which it has appropriate rights to.

SOW 180005, page 1, section 1.2

No

0068 Draft RFP release During Industry Day, the government verbally stated they would release the Draft RFP in mid‐January. With a final RFP released at the end of January, this would not allow enough time for the government to receive, address, and incorporate comments or recommended changes from industry. Will the government consider releasing the Draft RFP at least one month prior to the final RFP?

That is the Government's current intention. The Government is currently finalizing the Section L&M requirements, which will have to go through multiple internal reviews. We expect to release a draft around mid to late January 2019. There is a potential that there will be a narrow window between DRAFT RFP and Final RFP so that it can be as technically accurate as possible. The focus of Section L&M will be on what is most important to the Government with the objective of reducing the “creative writing” aspect for the contractor in developing its proposal.

General No

0069 Courseware Units of Measure Please explain the government’s approach to establishing a quotable unit of course measure that will enable a uniform way to evaluate pricing.

For the first DO, the Government will provide learning objectives tied to simulation complexity levels and estimated times. The Government will identify the systems/sub‐systems to be functional and ship spaces to be modeled. The virtual scanning of the ship is a separate Contract Line Item Number (CLIN).

SOW 180005, page 11, paragraph 3.1.4

No

0070 Price Realism Will the government consider conducting a cost/price realism analysis in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.404‐1(d) (3) in order to determine risk associated with a potentially unusually low price? Will the government consider including evaluation for unbalanced pricing to prevent gamesmanship in price across Delivery Orders, CLINs and Option Years? To prevent an unqualified offeror who lacks the understanding of the requirements to submit an unrealistically low price, FAR 15.404‐1 allows the government to conduct either a cost or price realism analysis provided that the solicitation explicitly states that a cost or price realism analysis will be conducted on a Firm Fixed Price. We recommend the government conducted a cost or price realism analysis to ensure the customer gets the quality of services it’s been accustomed to.

Please explain what analysis the government will perform in determining that an offeror has a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the performance methods and staffing approaches described in the offeror’s Technical Proposal.

The Government has considered price realism and determined it is not going to be an evaluated factor for this acquisition. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance of Sections L & M of the RFP.

Section L&M No

0071 Relational Object Database Will a relational object database be provided showing where objects are used? All software that the Government has appropriate rights to was provided to offerors that requested it and provided a hard drive.

General No

0072 Course Playback Hardware Requirements

What are the course playback hardware requirements (i.e. processors, graphics cards, storage, etc.)?

There is not a separate course playback requirement. Hardware requirements will be provided in the Specification.

General No

0073 IVSE and GFI Will IVSE and course operation manuals, specifications, design documents (hardware and software), interface documents, etc. be provided?

All LCS EPT data that the Government has appropriate rights to was provided to offerors that requested it and provided a hard drive. In the previous contract, design and interface documents were not developed and provided to the Government.

General No

0074 3‐D Source Files Regarding 3D models and animations that have been previously supplied, created and developed by the incumbent prime contractor, will these models and animation files be made available to the contract awardee? If so, will all pertinent files be provided to the contract awardee?

All software that the Government has appropriate rights to was provided to offerors that requested it and provided a hard drive.

General No