RFP-ACT-SACT-16-46_QA_1.pdf

RFP-ACT-SACT-16-46 PROOF OF CONCEPT FOR DIGITAL GAMES

QUESTION & ANSWERS #1

August 26, 2016

QUESTION RESPONSE

Q1. Reference paragraph 39, sub para J. This implies that the application will be downloaded from the LMS or PC and run natively on that machine. Is that correct?

A1. Yes. It may be downloaded from the platform's app site and will be run on a handheld device. Given the IOS/ANDROID requirements a link would be from the LMS to the appropriate store and a PC download version available from the LMS.

Q2. Reference paragraph 39, sub para j. Delivery Requirement. The training game will be downloadable from the NATO Learning

Management System (LMS), and run on the users own or company device. It shall be optimized for mobile devices (Smart Phone to

Tablet), but also able to run on a standard PC. The game will be required to upload the users score and other metadata back to the

NATO LMS, and advise the user when new versions are posted. All images and videos must be imbedded in the application. To do updates, the superuser shall be able to work on a PC as described in the Hardware section of this SOR, and Reference paragraph 39, sub para J. It must be optimized for mobile devices, does that also mean that mobile versions of the game need to be available?

A2. Yes. Mobile versions must be available.

Q3. Reference paragraph 39, sub para J. iOS and Android apps cannot be delivered directly from an LMS as they typically require a download from their respective platforms’ app stores. Is that an acceptable delivery method for this game?

A3. Yes. That is an acceptable delivery method for this game (See answer above)

Q4. Does the NATO LMS already support a mechanism for uploading scores and metadata from native applications?

A4. Yes. This capability is part of the Joint Advanced Distributed

Learning (JADL) that this game will be connected---discussion on the appropriate mechanism using industry standards will follow award.

Q5. Reference paragraphs 12, 20, 21, 22, and 41. Do all command levels need to be playable and complete within the prototype, or if it is acceptable to show two just enough to show that functionality?

A5. The command levels that need to be playable and complete within the prototype are three examples of the different paths that the developer chooses.

Para 12. This work will build the shell for the complete game but only implement one teaching strand of the game. In other words, only about 10-20% of the game will initially work, the rest will be greyed out with little or no content behind the buttons. Further work is contingent on the level of success of this work and the issuing of another RFP.

Para 20. Three environments will be developed to incorporate the differing legal frameworks that NATO operates under in different emergent situations, such Peacekeeping, Non-

International Armed Conflict, and International Armed

Conflict. STANAG 2449 requires that all NATO personnel, Non-Commissioned Officers, Officers, and certain specialties including; Flag and General Officers (FOGO), Medical, Military Police, Legal Advisors, persons handling Detainees, and others be trained with specific requirements. The game will fulfill this requirement and the basis for the content and teaching principles of the game.

Para 21. The player will be required to pass the basic Tactical game level first, followed by the appropriate subsequent game levels (NCO/Officer Operational Planning, and

Specializations). The ultimate goal is to familiarize NATO forces with the unique requirements of operating within

NATO missions.

Para 22. The following game levels of play unlock as the player completes the prior game level. The additional game levels are only required by the position and specialization of the player.

s. Tactical – All players (Appendix B of STANAG I),

t. Operational – NCOs and Officers (Appendix C & D of

STANAG I respectively),

u. Specialties – As appropriate (Appendix E of STANAG I), and

v. HQ – Operational Planning Level (Appendix F of

STANAG I and STANAG II) until, and shall pass to HQ

SACT upon: 1) Delivery of the supplies to a carrier, if transportation is f.o.b. origin; or 2) Delivery of the supplies to

HQ SACT at the destination specified in the contract, if transportation is f.o.b. destination.

Para 41. Login

a. Player logs in and selects status:

b. FOGO (Different Player levels available of Tactical, Operational, Specialty (includes list of Specialties such as Medical, Legal, Detainee, FOGO)

c. Scene 1. Player Arrives at briefing site.

d. Brief 1

1) This is in a hanger adjacent to the airport and you see duffle bags and weapons on the floor with no seating.

2) Comic Storyboard Conversation Welcoming on-board (10 screenshots back and forth)

3) Receives common group briefing:

4) <<Welcome to LOAC GAME. You are being mobilized as part of your Nations contribution to NATO. You will be working in a diverse multinational force. >> Intact Scenario data from

PDPE16-01 Crisis in the Baltic Sea Region paragraphs 1-2, 29-34).

5) Provide Roadmap of game: You will receive a country briefing, and then head to the airport where you will want to be sure to enter the right gate to the proper NATO mission you will be serving in. You will see gates for missions in NIAC, IAC, and

Peace-Keeping Operations. Once you board the plane, you will receive mission specific briefing and training on-board your C-130.

Be sure to pay attention to the type of mission as this will affect the type of ROE and Host Nation laws that will apply to your actions while in country. Now, off to the airport. >>

6) Now scene opens to tarmac with several gates leading to different C130’s in the background and the other gate choices are visible for other Scenarios: IAC, NIAC, Peace-Keeping:

7) Player chooses gate for NIAC

8) Scene 2

a) Boards airplane:

b) You see the airplane and jet bridge/stairs

c) Now Player is seated with other seats around and screen in front of seat (nice commercial planes were contracted!)

e. Brief 2:

1) Receives personal briefing on screen:

2) This is cut and pasted from scenario with country history, status of situation, current events, things to be aware of, escalation of site, etc. (30-90 seconds).

3) PDPE16-01 (paragraphs 1-28) as template for scenes

4) <<Lights out, get some rest. We’ll be arriving in 8 hours.>>

f. Scene 3

1) Lands and arrives at airport:

2) First scene is bright white, as desert light blinds upon exit down stairs of plane and stumbles on the last step. Mountains are visible in background and perimeter fence. Helicopter awaiting loads.

3) Overview of camp from the air after passing mountains and towns and large city. This is the first view of the HQ building and base buildings that will be used for play, as well as mountains, desert, coastal waters, cities and towns.

g. Scene 4

1) Arrives on base for briefing:

2) Greeted at helicopter.

3) + FOGO receives appropriate FOGO welcome aboard and ceremony for assumption of command (10 seconds).

h. Scene 5

1) Goes on mission/assumes position on staff:

i. Brief 3

1) During the intake brief:

2) <<Welcome aboard, there has been anticipation of the change of responsibility, and we have intelligence of increased activity by insurgents intent to take advantage of the new leadership of the

NATO mission. >> PDPE16-01 (paragraph 35-82).

Q6. Do the CVs count towards the 10 page count limit? A6. No, CVs are excluded from the page limit

Q7. Do we provide our CVs (of Team Members and of LOAC

Expert) as attachments to the proposal or are they part of the ten page limit?

A7. CVs are not part of the 10 page limit.

Q8. You suggest that the proposer might offer a quicker delivery than 12 weeks, but I do not see where that figures into the score.

A8. The Approach, Milestones, IPR schedule will be considered by the Contract Award Committee and scored based on merit. An earlier delivery of the product would be a consideration in score determination.

Q9. How are price and score balanced? eg: You might select on score and use price as the tie-breaker. Or maybe there is a threshold score, and all who make it compete on price? Or maybe there is no such hard methodology.

A9. Price and score are equally balanced and important. 100 points are possible on both technical and price. Price scoring will be determined as per this example:

Lowest price = $1,000 = 100 Points

Next Lowest Price = $1940.00 (48% higher)

100 – 48 = 52 Points

Q10. Thanks for including an exemplar 'storyboard'. Was this design developed in-house by NATO staff or prepared by an external contractor?

A10. This was developed in-house by NATO staff

Q11. Can you provide the positions that are designated as key personnel on this contract?

A11. Instructional Designers, Legal Experts, Manager, etc.

Q12. If the answer to 1a is no, is the contractor to determine our own key positions and list our own key personnel based on our key position determinations?

A12. A11 provides examples only. Please list the contractor’s own key personnel who would work on the project.

Q13. If there are key personnel, can all CVs be excluded from page count and added as an appendix to the technical response document?

A13. See above – all CV’s are excluded

Q14. Would NATO consider extending the 10-page limit for our technical response in order to allow us to respond fully to the requirements listed in the Statement of Requirement?

A14. No. We expect a large number of replies. Remember, past performance, administrative/company data and CVs are not part of the 10 pages.

Q15. The definition of the Prospective Bidder refers to “the entity that has completed and returned the Enclosure of the transmittal letter of this RFP, and has indicated thereon its intention without commitment, to participate in this RFP.”

We cannot find a transmittal letter in any of the documents provided via FBO. By Enclosure, does NATO mean the RFP itself?

A15. Yes

Q16. Because of the clarifications necessary to properly develop a cost and agile schedule/work package, [redacted] requests an extension to the proposal due date to provide the best possible solution and both a reasonable and realistic proposal.

A16. Due to the large number of questions and complexity of this requirement, the deadline for submission is extended to 8:00 a.m.

Eastern Standard Time, 19 September, 2016.

Q17. - SOR paragraph 13 states, "A SOR is used in this solicitation to provide the maximum flexibility for bidders to propose an innovative and cost effective development approach and solution to meet the stated objectives." SOR paragraph 9 states the "Aim", SOR paragraph 19 states the "Game Concept", SOR paragraph 39 states

"essential characteristics of the game", and SOR paragraph 21 states the "ultimate goal", but there are no stated objectives in the SOR.

Please clarify what the stated objectives are.

A17. Paragraph 12 "objectives" refers to the entire SOR package in support of producing a "proof of concept digital game", as discussed in paragraph 9 "Aim 9. This statement of requirement (SOR) seeks to develop a proof of concept digital game to educate law professionals and non-professionals about the LOAC and ROE from a NATO viewpoint."

Q18. The items listed in the table in Annex A align to the what is required to respond to this RFP, which is stated in SOR paragraph 44, with the exception of SOR paragraph 44.g., "The development timeline to develop the game", which is not listed in the table in

Annex A. Please clarify that the development timeline to develop the game that the bidder proposes is not part of the evaluation criteria.

A18. Correct. There is no separate score for 44g. The development timeline is part of the evaluation criteria. It is key to evaluating the the

"Milestones", "In Progress Review (IPR) Schedule", and the General

Timeline in Paragraph 15 to determine whether this Proof of Concept can be delivered by 31 December 2016.

Q19. SOR paragraph 44.f. states, "A diagram similar to diagram 1 showing in much greater detail what will be working and what will be

A19. The proof of concept is to illustrate three paths. The "greying out" only means that other paths need not be completed.

greyed out in the game". Please clarify that the Proof of Concept is required to grey out what does not work.

Q20. The bidder is required to put together a comprehensive plan to achieve the requirements in the SOR. The company will provide their approach to the planned deliverables in a paper with content not to exceed 10 pages (company background, compliance, etc. outlined in bidders instructions above is not included in the page count). The paper will address:

f. A diagram similar to diagram 1 showing in much greater detail what will be working and what will be greyed out in the game.

A20. Paragraph 44.f. requires that any proposed development sections that are not currently developed but planned for future development be greyed out.

Q21. SOR paragraph 44.g. states, "The development timeline to develop the game". Please clarify if the development timeline to develop the game is different from the indicative schedule of deliverables for the Proof of Concept described in SOR paragraph

15g The development timeline to develop the game.

A21. SOR paragraph 44.g "the development timeline to develop the game", refers to the same timeline as SOR paragraph 15, "General

Timeline".

Q22. Requirements for the Proof of Concept

SOR title page states, "Statement of Requirements for Developing a

Proof of Concept Digital Game for Training in NATO Rules of

Engagement and the Law of Armed Conflict", and SOR paragraph 44 states, "The bidder is required to put together a comprehensive plan to achieve the requirements in the SOR", but there are no explicitly stated requirements for developing the Proof of Concept. SOR paragraph 20 states, "STANAG 2449 requires ... personnel ... be trained with specific requirements", but these are training requirements, not requirements for the Proof of Concept.

Furthermore, given that SOR paragraph 39.d. states that a superuser will have the ability "to update content easily", all statements in the

SOR about what any aspect of the game "will" include or be able to do are vague with respect to what the awardee is required to deliver as

A22. The Proof of Concept game is the deliverable. It is up to the bidder to develop a deliverable that they feel best meets the requirements provided and described in the SOR. The bidder will be evaluated per Annex A, by their creativity in the "Approach (15 points)", "An Outline of game capabilities and content" (10 points), "A diagram showing in detail what will be greyed out in the game (10 points)" (which means to be developed at a later stage), "The technical characteristics of the game (10)". These add up to 45 points in the scoring. This should indicate that the developer is part of the solution and required to bring their expertise to bear on the development of the contract.

part of the Proof of Concept. Please clarify the requirements for the

Proof of Concept.

Q23. SOR paragraph 20 goes on to state, "The game will fulfil this requirement", but this references the game, not the Proof of Concept.

Please clarify which specific requirements encompassed by STANAG

2449 are requirements for the Proof of Concept.

A23. STANAG 2449, ATrainP-2, and accompanying NATO materials, are the content sources of the game.

Q24. SOR paragraph 10 states, "The game will include information commonly used in common NATO command and control processes

...", but this references the game, not the Proof of Concept. Please clarify what information the Proof of Concept is required to include.

A24. STANAG 2449, Allied Training Publication-2, and accompanying NATO materials, are the content sources of the game.

Q25. SOR paragraph 12 states, "This work will build the shell for the complete game but only implement one teaching strand of the game."

Please clarify if "this work" means the Proof of Concept. Please clarify what is meant by "shell". Please clarify what is meant by "one teaching strand of the game". Given the next clarification request, please clarify if the game is required to have about 5-10 teaching strands.

A25. STANAG 2449, Allied Training Publication-2, and accompanying NATO materials, are the content sources of the game.

The shell is the outline of the game as envisioned in Diagram 1.

Q26. SOR paragraph 12 goes on to state, "only about 10-20% of the game will initially work". Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to deliver 10-20% of the game that works. If yes, please clarify which 10-20% of the game the Proof of Concept is required to deliver that works. Please clarify what is meant by "work".

A26. Work, means a fully functional level of play as described in

SOR paragraph 22 and 40/41.

Q27. SOR paragraph 15 states the schedule of deliverables is

"indicative", and that it is "permissible ... to be quickened". Please clarify if the schedule is a minimum requirement.

This schedule is a minimum requirement of the bid. Yes, it can be quickened. The game must be developed, delivered, tested and accepted in calendar year 2016.

Q28. The following is an indicative schedule of deliverables based on the award date. Note that it is permissible for this timeline to be quickened.

m Award (expected) - Sep 16, n Award + 5 days - initial telephone coordination conversation, o Award + 4 weeks - initial design of ROE/LOAC Game, A28. Amend paragraph 18 to read, "The NATO scenario “The Crisis in the Baltic Sea Region” will be utilised in developing this prototype."

p Award + 12 weeks - ROE/LOAC Game complete, q Award + 13 weeks - ROE/LOAC Game trials/tests complete, and r Note: telephone conversations will be held with the project officer every two weeks.

SOR paragraph 18 states, "The NATO scenario “The Crisis in the

Baltic Sea Region” will be utilised in developing this prototype. See the enclosure for a brief description. The complete scenario from which excerpts can be made, will be provided to the contract awardee." Please clarify if prototype means Proof of Concept. If the

Proof of Concept is required to build "the shell for the complete game", please clarify how the bid is required to describe how the complete shell will be built without access to the complete scenario?

Q29. SOR paragraph 20 states, "Three environments will be developed to incorporate the differing legal frameworks that NATO operates under in different emergent situations, such Peacekeeping, Non-International Armed Conflict, and International Armed

Conflict." Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to have 3 environments developed. If yes, please clarify if the 3 environments are required to be Peacekeeping, Non-International Armed Conflict, and International Armed Conflict.

A29. The Proof of Concept is only required to develop one Operating

Environment, the Non-International Armed Conflict", but have greyed out the other two Operating Environments.

Q30. SOR paragraph 21 states, "The player will be required to pass the basic Tactical game level first, followed by the appropriate subsequent game levels (NCO/Officer Operational Planning, and

Specializations)." Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to make the player pass the basic Tactical game level before subsequent game levels. Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to impose other restrictions on a player's ability to progress through game levels.

A30. Yes, the player must complete the Tactical level first. The player must pass the level TPs prior to advancing, or advance with negative future effects until the TP is re-learned.

Q31. SOR paragraph 22 states the "game levels of play" that "unlock as the player completes the prior game level" are "Tactical", "Operational", "Specialties", and "HQ – Operational Planning Level".

A31. Yes, the game is required to take the player beyond these levels.

The Tactical will need to be completed first (with some possible direct lines for FOGOs).

Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to make the player pass the "Tactical" level before the "Operational" level, the

"Operational" level before the "Specialties" level, and the

"Specialties" level before the "HQ – Operational Planning Level".

Q32. SOR paragraph 25 states, "There will be a territory map with the airport, base map with buildings which will unlock, and external base terrain including mountain fighting areas, civilian housing (cities and villages), host nation administration buildings, cultural property

(museums, monuments, archaeological sites), Public Works

(hydroelectric, power, water treatment infrastructure), NGO buildings, civilian property (farms, houses), and roadways. Areas will include Mountains, Land, City, Desert, Country with Towns, and Sea.

Specific scenes will include Airport, HQ base, HQ building, city plaza, mountain, town, desert, air space, and sea coast." Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to have a territory map, base map, and/or external base terrain. Please clarify if "external base terrain" is another map or if the list of what is included is required to be shown on the territory map. Please clarify if the areas and specific scenes listed are required to be shown on the territory map.

A32. This is an example of types of areas and objects the map will cover. The contractor will provide their vision of how to do this.

Q33. SOR paragraph 27 states, "The Missions will be developed to highlight the interplay of ROE, Self-Defence, and LOAC throughout the adventure of the mission." Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to include missions that highlight this interplay. If yes, please clarify how many missions the Proof of Concept is required to include.

A33. Yes, these will be developed in the storyboard scripting process.

Q34. SOR paragraph 27 goes on to state, "The mission will have a scripted storyline that will be incorporate the TPs into the mission through events that the player will encounter after being sent out on

Orders." If the Proof of Concept is required to include missions, please clarify if it is required to include a scripted storyline that incorporates TPs for each mission it is required to include.

A34. Yes, the Proof of Concept will incorporate the missions as part of the level of play.

Q35. SOR paragraph 28 states, "TPs will be set as pillars within the game environment that the player will need to complete prior to moving on to the next event in the storyline." SOR paragraph 43 states that 7 TPs and 5 sub-TPs "need to be included". Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to include the TPs listed in SOR paragraph 43. Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to develop additional TPs.

A35. Yes, there will be additional TPs that need to be included after development as this grows, so the Proof of Concept will have to address how these will be added to the game environment, if it is possible.

Q36. SOR paragraph 28 goes on to state, "Various events will intertwine several TPs in a dynamic and realistic way that will allow the player to engage with the material." Please clarify if the Proof of

Concept is required to intertwine TPs as described. If yes, please clarify how many events are required to have intertwined TPs.

A36. The ability of the developer to use one event to address multiple teaching points will display the developer's understanding of the NATO materials and the goals of the course.

Q37. Teaching Points 28.

In order to deliver the content required by the STANAG 2449

(STANAG I) & 2597 (STANAG II) and ATrainP-2 & ATrainP-4, TPs will be set as pillars within the game environment that the player will need to complete prior to moving on to the next event in the storyline. Various events will intertwine several TPs in a dynamic and realistic way that will allow the player to engage with the material.

SOR paragraph 29 states, "TPs will be delivered via cutaways from the game which will be presented in a dialogue" and SOR paragraph

42 states, "Prior to each event play a dialogue storyboard will teach the Teaching Points required for the lesson in several short dialogue back and forth screenshots (think jpeg with dialogue box)." Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to deliver TPs via cutaways.

Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to present TPs in a dialogue.

A37. TPs will be presented via cutaways and dialogue, which may be something such as a motion comic type format or speech bubble or other content delivery vehicle. TPs will also be delivered by the game environment in an experiential learning way, by confronting the problem in the game environment.

Q38. SOR paragraph 29 goes on to state, "the player will re-enter the game and apply the knowledge to the orders they have". Please clarify

A38. A cutaway is part of the game, hence a dialogue or teaching screen which once complete will segue back into the game environment.

if the Proof of Concept is required to allow the player to re-enter the game after a TP dialogue.

Q39. SOR Paragraph 29: TPs will be delivered via cutaways from the game which will be presented in a dialogue. The dialogue may be a human narrating in a video, a 2D or 3D cartoon, diagrams, text or some other appropriate presentation. An example TP is enclosed.

Once the material has been presented, the player will re-enter the game and apply the knowledge to the orders they have, (e.g. to protect a piece of cultural property). This “experiential” learning will allow the player to engage the knowledge and integrate it in a real world learning environment.

SOR paragraph 30 states, "TPs will be developed from ATrainP-2 and

ATrainP-4 and other materials." If the Proof of Concept is required to develop TPs, please clarify what other materials are required to be used.

A39. The TPs will be chosen by NATO and incorporated into the scripting of the game. TPs will be developed from ATrainP-2 and

ATrainP-4 and other materials. Sample TPs:

a. FOGO TP (8): Command Responsibility

1) Overall Command Responsibility (CR),

2) CR for integrating the law,

3) Cooperation with civilian authorities,

4) Tactical situation and military necessity,

5) Decision making and orders, and

6) Control of execution.

b. Basic TP (1): Protection & Distinction (STANAG I, Appendix B)

1) Combatant (2c) (cf ATrainP-2 F-27),

2) Protected persons (2d),

3) Protected objects (2e),

4) Protected and distinctive emblems (2f),

5) Means & methods of warfare, including prohibitions under LOAC and applicable national obligations (2g), and

6) Enforcement of LOAC (2h)

a) State Obligations,

b) Individual Responsibility,

c) Command Responsibility,

d) Prevention of LOAC violations (cf. Appendix C 2i (4)), and

e) War crimes.

Q40. SOR paragraph 33 states, "Choices will be presented as to how to handle the situation that will have consequences that inure to the benefit or detriment of the mission later in the game." Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to present choices. If yes, please

A40. Yes, the Proof of Concept is required to present choices. These are dynamic and not quantifiable and part of the development process.

clarify how many choices are required per situation, how many situations with choices are required, and whether the choices are required to have consequences.

Q41. Choices will be presented as to how to handle the situation that will have consequences that inure to the benefit or detriment of the mission later in the game.

SOR paragraph 39 states what are considered to be "essential characteristics of the game". Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to have these characteristics.

A41. Yes, it is required and part of the scoring process.

Q42. The title to SOR paragraph 40 states, "The Actual Mission to be modelled", but SOR paragraph 40 states, "The following storyboard describes a sample mission to be modelled. Bidders are not meant to do this work but use the storyboard as an indication of the level of effort required so that financials may be appropriately estimated."

Please clarify whether the Proof of Concept is required to model the mission described in SOR paragraph 41 or whether it is a sample to estimate level of effort.

A42. The SOR paragraph 40 reads that this is a sample mission.

Q43. SOR paragraph 45 states, "the game must be able to be modified in all aspects including changing language". Please clarify if the Proof of Concept is required to be modified in all aspects including changing language.

A43. Yes. The Proof of Concept is required to be modified as one of the larger objectives of the Proof of Concept is to entice partners such as nations to participate in follow-on work.

Q44. Are able to give an indication of the budget you intend to allocate for this project work?

A44.

Q45. Aim (para 9) states that the SOR seeks to develop a proof of concept digital game and Scope (paras 10-13) states the game seeks to train all personnel on NATO ROE and LOAC to the standard contained in ATP-4 and ATP-2

A45. Para 12: “This work will build the shell for the complete game but only implement one teaching strand of the game.”

Q46. Para 12: “This work will build the shell for the complete game but only implement one teaching strand of the game.”

A46. An example strand is given at paragraph 41

1. ATP-4 provides a training template of some 67 topic/slides for

4 learning objectives as 1 programme. ATP-2 describes 4 programmes, 78 topic/slides but no learning objective. So, what are the specific parameters of the “compete game”

2. The term “strand” is not used in either ATP-2 or ATP-4, so, what do you consider to be the different teaching strands of game?

Q47. Para 12 states “only about 10-20% of the game will initially work, the rest will be greyed out with little or no content behind the buttons.” Does that mean that the proof of concept only covers one

(1) level of player or only one (1) of the four NATO types of operations? (i.e. peacekeeping, etc.)?

A47. Yes

Q48. Who makes the call on what is greyed out – is that supposed to be specified in the bid or determined collaboratively during the development process?

A48. This will be a collaborative decision between NATO and

Contractor

Q49. Para 12 states Further work is contingent on 5. “Does this mean that a successful bidder who the level of success of this work and the issuing of another RFP successfully delivers a proof of concept digital game would not be invited to continue the development of the game based on the proof of concept?

If so, how would any software IPR be protected in the event that another bidder was selected to develop the game based on the proof of concept game? Para 13 states that bidders are to “propose an innovative and cost effective development approach and solution to meet the stated objectives.

A49. No. Delivery of the proof of concept will not preclude bidding on future development of the game; however it should be noted that an exclusive invitation to continue development of the game based on proof of concept will not be extended to the contractor. Any future development will be competitively awarded.

Refer to HQ SACT General Terms and Conditions. HQ SACT will own the Intellectual Property.

Q50. There are no objectives stated in the RFP or in ATP-2. It will be difficult to design the game without a clear set of learning objectives and desired outcomes Where are these objectives stated?

A50. Paragraph 12 "objectives" refers to the entire SOR package in support of producing a "proof of concept digital game", as discussed in paragraph 9 "Aim 9. This statement of requirement (SOR) seeks to develop a proof of concept digital game to educate law professionals and non-professionals about the LOAC and ROE from a NATO viewpoint."

Q51. Para 16 states that the “target user audience for this game are students needing a refresher, preparing for deployment, or prior to attending the NATO Law of Armed Conflict course.”

The Course Participants for the NATO School NATO Operational

Law Course (N5-68) are stated as Military officers (OF-1 through

OF-5) or civilian equivalents who are assigned as a LEGAD to a

NATO billet or a national billet that requires involvement with

NATO. This target audience is significantly different that that encompassed in ATP-4 and ATP-2. Para 19 says the game will be

“utilized by NATO personnel prior to deploying or attending NATO training exercises, and during deployment…”, which would be an expanded target audience. Also, para 20 refers to “all NATO personnel”. So, what exactly is the target audience for the game?

A51. The initial target audience is military and civilian personnel serving in NATO. If the proof of concept is successful it will be used to invite interest from the nations to be used in the training of their forces for NATO duties.

Q52. Para 19 refers to a “game environment in which the LOAC can be synthesized with the planning process required by NATO ROE.”

Is the bidder required to relate application of LOAC and the development of ROE to the MC- 133 and ACO COPD?

A52. No

Q53. Para 20 states that “Three environments will be developed to incorporate the differing legal frameworks that NATO operates under in different emergent situations, such Peacekeeping, Non-

International Armed Conflict, and International Armed Conflict.

How many environments have to be developed in the proof of concept digital game?

A53. The Proof of Concept is only required to develop one Operating

Environment, the Non-International Armed Conflict", but have greyed out the other two Operating Environments.

Q54. Para 27 states that “Missions will be developed to highlight the interplay of ROE, Self-Defence, and LOAC” and that players will be

“sent out on Orders”. This sounds like tactical execution.

A54.

A. This depends on the level of the individual player

B. Those parts that relate to advising on ROE.

A. How does this relate to the requirement in para 19 to synthesis of LOAC in developing ROE in the planning process?

B. Does the game have to cover planning and execution?

Q55. Para 40 states “The following storyboard describes a sample mission to be modelled. Bidders are not meant to do this work but use the storyboard as an indication of the level of effort required so that financials may be appropriately estimated.”

a. Para 27 states that “Missions will be developed”. Who will develop these?

b. Are these military missions as defined in para 5.k?

c. The examples seem tactical. Are there different “missions” for different levels?

A55.

a. The contractor in consultation with the COTR

b. Yes

c. Yes

Q56. Is there a defined maximum price (or any budget guidance) attached to the RFP?

A56.

Q57. Would it be possible to receive a copy of the answers to any other clarification questions that have been submitted for the RFP?

A57. Yes. All questions and responses are made public for all interested.

Q58. Lastly, as per your advertisement bids shall be received at HQ

SACT no later than 2 September 2016, 15.00 hours. As our submission will have to be sent from the United Kingdom, it would entail submitting the proposal package for postage no later than

Wednesday 31 August. As we have come across this notice rather late in the process, we might require some additional time to prepare a full response to the RFP. Under the above circumstances, we kindly request for an extension of time for tender submission by five working days (to 9 September) in order to encourage a fully competitive tender process.

A58.

Q59. Paragraph 39B states normal gameplay is expected to be 30 minutes. Is this for the entire game or for just the proof of concept

A59. This time is meant to be per mission/strand/TP.

Q60. Paragraph 39i states that the biographical information collected will drive what level needs to be achieved. Does this mean a level of proficiency (e.g., scoring) for the certificate to be issued or which levels the user will access in the full up game (e.g., FOGO, Military

Police, etc.)

A60. It means which levels will be played.

Q61. Paragraph 39J: Can they confirm this will be integrated with the

Ilias LMS

A61. Yes

Q62. Paragraph 39J: relating to the requirement that the training game will be downloadable from the NATO LMS. Is this intended to be run as a Sharable Content Object (SCO) and delivered the same way as a course or will a simple link from the portal suffice?

A61. A simple score and completed link would be acceptable. In the near future we will integrate xAPI into our LMS and the long term goal would be metadata using this process.

Q63. Paragraph 39J: When they state “Optimized for mobile devices”, do they mean they want a Native application or is this intended to run within a mobile browser. If a native application is desired, is there any documentation on how to connect a native application into the NATO LMS (e.g., web services)?

A63. We have no documentation on this process to date. Companies would be requested to submit their proposals in order for application to run on mobile devices from phone to tablet.

Q64. Paragraph 39J: For the requirement stating that the solution must notify users when an updated version is available, this is easier to do with a native application but is more difficult if implemented as a SCO as business rules will need to be applied within the LMS. Is this a current feature of the NATO LMS?

A64. It is not a current feature of the LMS (other than bulk emails to all users of that course), proposals from the bidders and the best method to implement would be expected.

Q65. Paragraph 39J: The requirement for the game to be completed

(12 weeks) and all testing and trials completed one week later. Does this include SCORM conformance testing and any other testing required to integrate this game with the NATO LMS?

A65. No it does not include this testing. The SCORM testing will be done later if the proof of concept is successful and it is decided to go to a full version.

Q66. Paragraph 39J: regarding the requirement for the superuser to be able to provide updates to the game, is there a process that needs to be followed to ensure content is valid, conformant, and appropriate?

What is the envisioned workflow for how NATO would like to see this occur?

A66. In the delivered product, there should be a user editable area where the game owner and subject matter experts can make changes to the text and graphics for minor changes. These would be approved by the Legal Owners and be published as the new version of the game. Expansions or more involved modifications would go through a CCB process and be costed and approved for development with a vendor.

Q67. Paragraph 39J: This paragraph references the “Hardware section” of the SOR but there is no section that discussed hardware.

A67. Paragraph 39J, delete, "To do updates, the superuser shall be able to work on a PC as described in the Hardware section of the

SOR".