W900KK23R0005_Attach_32_Questions_and_Answers_20230113.pdf

Attachment 32 Section A Solicitation #: W900KK-23-R-0005 Rev Date: 13 JAN 2023

SOW Reference/General Topic Original Text Question Government Response CBID III Industry Comment – Questions and Answers

NO COMMENTS / QUESTIONS / RECOMMENTDATIONS RECEIVED FROM INDUSTRY

Source Selection Sensitive – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Attachment 32 Section B Solicitation #: W900KK-23-R-0005

SOW Reference/General Topic Original Text Question Government Response CBID III Industry Comment – Questions and Answers

Attachment 32 Section C Solicitation #: W900KK-23-R-0005

SOW Reference/General Topic Original Text Question Government Response C.3 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION (b) To the extent that GFI, including software and intellectual property, is provided, the Government furnishes that GFI in an “as-is” condition. The Government makes no warranty with respect to the serviceability and/or suitability of the GFI for contract performance. Any repairs, replacement, modifications, refurbishment, software patches shall be at the Contractor’s expense.

The most current version of TC 3-01.80 is dated May 2017. The Solicitation is revised to incorporate TC 3-01.80 (MAY 2017) at Attachment 3 to the Sample Task Order.

(W900KK23R0005_Attach_13_VACR_IMI_and_AEC_Sample_Tas k_Order_20230113).

Attachment 3 to the VCR IMI & AEC sample Task Order is incorporated by reference at Section J of the solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005 as Attachment 19.

C.7 TASK ORDERS PROCEDURES

(d) Negotiated Agreement. For task orders with an estimated value of greater than $1.00, the information contained in each task order with respect to labor categories, man-hours and delivery date shall be the result of a negotiated agreement reached by the parties in advance of issuance of the order. (1) The Ordering Officer shall furnish the contractor with a written preliminary task order and request for proposal.

CBID III Industry Comment – Questions and Answers

W900KK-23-R-

0005_Amd_0001_CBID_III_conformed_20221109

Reference Section/Paragraph: C.3 (b); C.7(d); and, Appendix D.

The section states that “the Government furnishes … GFI in an “as-is” condition. The Government makes no warranty with respect to the serviceability and/or suitability of the GFI for contract performance.” The Government further places any requirement for cure to GFI upon the Contractor.

Section C.7(d) notes the Government “shall furnish the contractor with a written preliminary task order and request for proposal,” and makes no mention of GFI in its negotiated agreement process.

W900KK-23-D-0TBD / W900KK23FSAMP, PWS for Sample Task Order W900KK23FSAMP, Appendix D, Government Furnished Information, lists TC 3-01.80 as the only GFI supporting that PWS, but does not make the GFI available.

Will the Government confirm that the referenced document (dated May 2017) is the most recent version of the publication?

Attachment 32 Section D Solicitation #: W900KK-23-R-0005

SOW Reference/General Topic Original Text Question Government Response CBID III Industry Comment – Questions and Answers

Attachment 32 Section E Solicitation #: W900KK-23-R-0005

SOW Reference/General Topic Original Text Question Government Response CBID III Industry Comment – Questions and Answers

Attachment 32 Section F Solicitation #: W900KK-23-R-0005

SOW Reference/General Topic Original Text Question Government Response CBID III Industry Comment – Questions and Answers

Attachment 32 Section G Solicitation #: W900KK-23-R-0005

SOW Reference/General Topic Original Text Question Government Response CBID III Industry Comment – Questions and Answers

Attachment 32 Section I Solicitation #: W900KK-23-R-0005

SOW Reference/General Topic Original Text Question Government Response Section I - Clause 52.216-32 TASK-ORDER AND DELIVERY-

ORDER OMBUDSMAN (SEPT 2019)

52.216-32 TASK-ORDER AND DELIVERY-ORDER OMBUDSMAN

(SEPT 2019)

(a) In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 4106(g), the Agency has designated the following Task/Delivery Orders Ombudsman for this Contract. The Ombudsman must review complaints from the Contractor concerning all Task/Delivery Order actions for this Contract and ensure the Contractor is afforded a fair opportunity for consideration in the award of orders, consistent with the procedures in the Contract.

Was the information correctly listed for clause 52.216-32? Government Response: The clause was rescinded and has been deleted from the solicitation.

W900KK-23-R-

0005_Amd_0004_CBID_III_conformed_20220113 shows the revision.

CBID III Industry Comment – Questions and Answers

Attachment 32 Section J Solicitation #: W900KK-23-R-0005

SOW Reference/General Topic Original Text Question Government Response W900KK-23-R-0005 Reference Section/Paragraph: Section J/List of Exhibits and Attachments

The RFP, Section J lists the Exhibits and Attachments where Attachments 2, 11, and 18 are listed as the IDIQ and Task Order QASPs, however in SAM they are listed as controlled and not available for download. Additionally, there is no mention of QASPs or any instructions on the use of the QASP throughout section L or Section M of the RFP. Will the Government provide additional Section L instructions and access to the controlled QASP attachments ASAP?

The QASP is a controlled attachment. A controlled attachment requires special handling due to the information it contains. You must request access to the attachment by clicking on its title and providing the reason you need access. Then follow any additional prompts/instructions to gain access. The purpose of the document is described in each QASP. For further guidance consult https://www.SAM.gov.

No change required to solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005.

Reference Section/Paragraph: RFP/page 58 of 130/Rev. 1 and Attachment 4

W900KK-23-R-

0005_Amd_0004_CBID_III_conformed_20230113

Will the Government provide workload data based on which of the labor categories have been most widely used on the previous contract and the locations where support has been provided previously? This will greatly assist offerors in staff planning and management approach.

The majority of the performance occurred in the contractor's facility.

Workload by labor category varied from one requirement to another and they were associated with the individual orders. The Government anticipates that performance of work performed under CBID II will be similar to CBID III with respect to the type of effort and place of performance.

No change to solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005 is required.

Reference Section/Paragraph: PEO-STR-13-D-XXX, PWS-

2021-045, COMPUTER BASED INSTRUCTIONAL

DEVELOPMENT (CBID) III PERFORMANCE WORK

STATEMENT - Appendix B

Attachment 01 CBID III IDIQ PWS

See Appendix B. Appendix B lists a number of outdated DIDs:

• Training Situation Document lists DI-SESS-81517B. The current version is

DI-SESS-81517C.

• Instructional Performance Requirements Document lists DI-SESS-81518B.

The current version is DI-SESS-81517D.

• Instructional Media Requirements Document lists DI-SESS-81519B. The current version is DI-SESS-81519D.

• Course Conduct Information Package lists DI-SESS-81522B. The current version is DI-PSSS-81522C.

• Training Conduct Support Document lists DI-SESS-81523B. The current version is DI-PSSS-81523C.

• Training Evaluation Document lists DI-SESS-81524B. The current version is DI-PSSS-81524C.

• Test Package lists DI-SESS-81525B. The current version is DI-SESS-81525C.

• Instructional Media Package lists DI-SESS-81526B. The current version is

DI-SESS-81526C.

• Training System Support Document lists DI-SESS-81527B. The current version is DI-PSSS-81527C.

Will the Government update those DIDs listed to reflect the current version as of publication of the PWS?

The DIDs listed at Appendix B have been revised. See W900KK23R0005_Attach_01_CBID_III_PWS_20230113

Reference Section/Paragraph: PWS Paragraph 4.7 Section 508 Compliance states “The Contractor shall indicate for each line item in the schedule whether each training product service is compliant or noncompliant with the accessibility standards at 36 CFR 1194. Further, the proposal must indicate where full details of compliance can be found (e.g., vendor's website or other exact location).”

Attachment 01 CBID III IDIQ PWS

4.7 Section 508 Compliance:

As required the contractor shall meet Section 508 Compliance in that: All electronic and IT (EIT) procured through this PWS/Bill of Materials and any resulting contract, ID/IQC Order, or purchase ID/IQC Order must meet the applicable accessibility standards at 36 CFR 1194, unless an agency exception to this requirement exists. 36 CFR 1194 implements Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and is viewable at ( https://www.access-board.gov/) Part 1194. The Contractor shall indicate for each line item in the schedule whether each training product service is compliant or noncompliant with the accessibility standards at 36 CFR 1194.

Further, the proposal must indicate where full details of compliance can be found (e.g., vendor's website or other exact location). The necessity for compliance will be specified at the order level.

Can the Government provide additional context on “where full details of compliance can be found”? We are familiar with 508 Compliance, but not familiar with providing details of full compliance through our website or other medium.

1. The VACR IMI & AEC Sample TO PWS paragraph L.4.7 states that the requirement is "Not applicable to this TO". Furthermore, neither the evaluation criteria, nor the proposal submission instructions provide direction to suggest Section 508 compliance will be evaluated.

2. Offerors who need more information prior to the requirement can visit a host of Websites on the Internet. For example the site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-XI/part-1194 may prove useful. A GSA site at section508.gov may prove useful.

Additionally, information can be sought from the Small Business Administration and Department of Labor.

3. No change to solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005 is required.

1. Relevant portions of the RFP:

a. W900KK-23-R-0005, Section B, paragraph B.1.2 : The proposed labor categories and fully burdened labor rates for the prime contractor are incorporated as an attachment to the CBID III contract as maximum allowable ceiling rates to be used when pricing all future task orders.

The proposed labor categories are not all inclusive. In the unlikely event that additional labor categories are deemed necessary, such additional labor categories and labor rates may be proposed and negotiated at the basic contract level (to include applicable attachments) if deemed necessary and acceptable by the Government to accomplish the task order requirements. The rates proposed for the additional labor categories should be commensurate with the pricing/estimating methodology employed to establish the rates awarded with the basic contract. Any new rates will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness, in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4.

b. W900KK-23-R-0005, Section L, paragraph L.1.1.1: The CBID III requirement is being pursued competitively as a Total Small Business Set- Aside for a single-award to a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) concern under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541519, Other Computer Related Services, with a size standard of $30 million.

After reviewing Attachment 4, Rate Card and based on our assessment the labor category descriptions, we determined that at least 7 labor categories that appear to map to DOL SCLS WD labor categories.

• SCA 01020 - Administrative Assistance II:

• SCA 01052 - Data Entry Specialist:

• SCA 15080 - Graphic Design Specialist

• SCA 15XXX - Instructional Technology Specialist:

• SCA 30461 - Technical Writer I (Entry Level):

• SCA 30462 - Technical Writer II (Intermediate Level):

• SCA 30463 - Technical Writer III (Senior Level):

Can the Government confirm that there are SCLS LCATS on this contract vehicle?

Our recommendation is that the Government:

• Designate those LCATS in the Attachment 4, Rate Card that the Government has determined to be SCLS

• Amend the RFP to include the FAR Clause 52.222-43 and 52.222-44

• Provide the appropriate SCLS WD’s to support the DOL SCA labor requirements

Reference Section/Paragraph: Attachment 4 Rate Card and SCLS WD Requirements

Attachment 04 CBID III Rate Guide

c. W900KK-23-R-0005_Attach_29_CBID_III_Price_Workbook_20221104:

Labor Category Exemption Status Tab: Upon review of the related regulations & clauses, Offerors shall identify if the Labor Categories listed are Exempt or Non/Exempt from the Service Contract Labor Standards.

Type either "Exempt" or "Non/Exempt" directly into the cell.

2. Government Response: CBID III requirements under NAICS 541519 are for professional services. History shows us during performance under the CBID and CBID II contracts (10 years and multiple order performed by small business prime contractors), there were no cases where the Prime Contractor identified a need to use any labor category requiring the application of Service Contract Labor Standards.

However, "SCA" clauses and appropriate DOL area wage determinations can be added to the contract where appropriate In the event a negotiated agreement is reached that results in the Governments determination that a service related labor category can perform requirements at an acceptable level of quality. It would be inappropriate to assume that for labor categories by the prospective offeror that all contractors are using the same "SCLS LCATS".

3. No change to solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005 is required.

Reference Section/Paragraph:

W900KK23R0005_Attach_04_CBID_III_Rate_Guide

Attachment 04 CBID III Rate Guide

The RFP, Section J lists the Exhibits and Attachments where Attachment 4 Rate Guide is listed as Pages TBD and Date as Upon Award, yet the document was included with the solicitation. Is the document included with the solicitation considered a final document that should be used in the offeror’s proposal development?

W900KK23R0005_Attach_29_CBID_III_RFP_Price_Workbook_Rev_1_202 21109 contains a tab labeled "Rate Guide". When the Rate Guide gets populated in the workbook the information provided by successful offeror will be incorporated into Attachment 04 under the contract.

No change to solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005 is required.

Reference Section/Paragraph:

W900KK23R0005_Attach_14_CBID_III_VACR_IMI_AEC_Exhi bit_A_CDRLs.pdf Reference Section/Paragraph: CDRL A005 (page 6)

Attachment 14 VACR IMI & AEC Exhibit A CDRLs

Some text is obscured in Block 16 Remarks, for Block 9, distribution statement description, possibly covering some of Block 12 (?). Please re-generate this page to ensure we can understand the requirements.

Government has completed the revision of the documentation to ensure clearly defined sentence structure.

Reference Section/Paragraph: W900KK-23-D-0TBD / W900KK23FSAMP, PWS for Sample Task Order

W900KK23FSAMP

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.1.5.1

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

3.1.5.1 TRR Entrance Criteria:

3.1.5.1 TRR Exit Criteria:

Two paragraphs share number 3.1.5.1 as:

3.1.5.1 TRR Entrance Criteria and 3.1.5.1 TRR Exit Criteria.

Will the Government clarify the numbering of these paragraphs to include missing content should there be any?

The paragraph number for TRR Exit Criteria has been changed from

3.1.5.1 to 3.1.5.2.

See W900KK23R0005_Attach_17_CBID_III_VACR_IMI_AEC_PWS_20230113

Reference Section/Paragraph: W900KK-23-D-0TBD / W900KK23FSAMP, PWS for Sample Task Order

W900KK23FSAMP

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.8.1.5

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

3.8.1.5 Instructional Media Design Package (IMDP): The contractor shall produce an IMDP IAW the CDRL to document the design and delivery method of the courseware. The purpose of the IMDP is to provide a blueprint of the development process. The IMDP provides a detailed description of the content, explains the design decisions, outlines the design specifications, and describes how the course will achieve the intended learning outcome. Design decisions include, but are not limited to, content type, TRADOC interactivity level, presentation format, course/lesson design strategy, course structure, interface design, testing strategies, and performance tracking design. The IMDP shall indicate the design interface, database structures, conventions, standards, and flow of the courseware curriculum. Sample display screens and an outline of the instruction shall also be provided. A prototype of the IMI design shall be produced to clearly depict the design of the courseware and user interactivity. The prototype shall demonstrate an example of the highest level of interactivity courseware as identified in this PWS. The prototype shall clearly demonstrate the function and appearance of common IMI elements such as highlights, hotspots, and pop-ups requiring user interaction.

(DI-SESS-81520B) Instructional Media Design Package

The paragraph notes a “prototype of the IMI design shall be produced to clearly depict the design of the courseware and user interactivity.”

However, there is no associated CDRL supporting its production.

Will the Government add a CDRL to support production of the required deliverable?

In Block 16 of CDRL C005 (W900KK23R0005_Attach_16_CBID_III_VACR_IMI_AEC_Exhibit_C_CDRLs ) it states "1. Block 4: This package provides the design documentation for the production of courseware. The contractor shall design the product to meet the stated requirements of this Delivery Order and document that design in a detailed Instructional Media Design Package (IMDP). A prototype of the IMI design shall be produced to clearly depict the design of the courseware. The prototype will consist of one lesson."

No change required to solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005

Reference Section/Paragraph: W900KK-23-D-0TBD / W900KK23FSAMP, PWS for Sample Task Order

W900KK23FSAMP

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.8.1.5

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

3.8.1.5 Instructional Media Design Package (IMDP): The contractor shall produce an IMDP IAW the CDRL to document the design and delivery method of the courseware. The purpose of the IMDP is to provide a blueprint of the development process. The IMDP provides a detailed description of the content, explains the design decisions, outlines the design specifications, and describes how the course will achieve the intended learning outcome. Design decisions include, but are not limited to, content type, TRADOC interactivity level, presentation format, course/lesson design strategy, course structure, interface design, testing strategies, and performance tracking design. The IMDP shall indicate the design interface, database structures, conventions, standards, and flow of the courseware curriculum. Sample display screens and an outline of the instruction shall also be provided. A prototype of the IMI design shall be produced to clearly depict the design of the courseware and user interactivity. The prototype shall demonstrate an example of the highest level of interactivity courseware as identified in this PWS. The prototype shall clearly demonstrate the function and appearance of common IMI elements such as highlights, hotspots, and pop-ups requiring user interaction.

(DI-SESS-81520B) Instructional Media Design Package

The interactivity level is based on TRADOC PAM 350-70-12 (2013) and MIL-HDBK-29612-3A (2001) requirements.

The reference mentioned, (Army Virtual Learning Environment 2017- 2022) is a separate contract action ending in FY23. This contract action does not apply to the CBID III requirement.

No change required to solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005.

The paragraph notes the IMDP will determine the TRADOC interactivity level.

Paragraph 3.8.1.3 refers to Appendix B for determination of IMI interactivity level. Appendix B identifies levels 1 through 3 as applicable.

Paragraph 3.8.1.8 notes that interactivity level will be based on TRADOC PAM 350-70-12 (2013) and MIL-HDBK-29612-3A (2001) requirements with both defining 4 levels of interactivity as: Level 1 – Passive, Level 2 – Limited participation, Level 3 – Complex participation, and Level 4 – Real-time participation.

TRADOC’s circa-2017 Army-Virtual Learning Environment (AVLE) contract established a new TRADOC standard for interactivity. AVLE defined 5 levels of interactivity as: Level 0 Interactivity – Passive, Level 1 Interactivity – Limited Participation, Level 2 Interactivity – Complex Participation, Level 3 Interactivity – Real-Time Participation, and Level 4 IMI – Immersive multimedia or computer-simulated virtual or augmented reality.

Identification of the Government’s understanding and requirement for levels of interactivity is needed to support an accurate Contractor Bid preparation.

Will the Government define which standards of interactivity will be required?

3.8.1.8 IMI Specific Requirements: The approach to estimating courseware production times shall be based on the validated methodology in TP 350-70- 12, paragraph 3-11. TP 350-70-12 promotes courseware which employs techniques that require frequent student interaction with the courseware as a means of facilitating learning. This courseware design consists of learner-centered, performance-based instruction that requires students to practice what they learn, receive immediate feedback on their performance. The IMI shall allow students to progress through the learning content at their own pace. Learning activities and Practical Exercises shall be created in such a way that the student will only be required to repeat the specific areas of deficiency.

The objective courseware design is a demonstration-performance method, a learning experience in which students observe and then participate in a sequence of events designed to teach a procedure, a technique, or an operation. Additional specific requirements for this effort include:

a.The IMI interac vity level shall be based on the validated methodology in TRADOC PAM 350-70-12 and MIL-HDBK-29612-3A. The contractor shall develop the IMI with the minimum interactivity requirements identified in the Government approved IMDP.

3.8.1.5 Instructional Media Design Package (IMDP): The contractor shall produce an IMDP IAW the CDRL to document the design and delivery method of the courseware. The purpose of the IMDP is to provide a blueprint of the development process. The IMDP provides a detailed description of the content, explains the design decisions, outlines the design specifications, and describes how the course will achieve the intended learning outcome. Design decisions include, but are not limited to, content type, TRADOC interactivity level, presentation format, course/lesson design strategy, course structure, interface design, testing strategies, and performance tracking design. The IMDP shall indicate the design interface, database structures, conventions, standards, and flow of the courseware curriculum. Sample display screens and an outline of the instruction shall also be provided. A prototype of the IMI design shall be produced to clearly depict the design of the courseware and user interactivity. The prototype shall demonstrate an example of the highest level of interactivity courseware as identified in this PWS. The prototype shall clearly demonstrate the function and appearance of common IMI elements such as highlights, hotspots, and pop-ups requiring user interaction.

(DI-SESS-81520B) Instructional Media Design Package

Reference Section/Paragraph: W900KK-23-D-0TBD / W900KK23FSAMP, PWS for Sample Task Order

W900KK23FSAMP

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.8.1.5

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

The paragraph notes the IMDP will determine the TRADOC interactivity level.

Paragraph 3.8.1.3 refers to Appendix B for determination of IMI interactivity level. Appendix B identifies levels 1 through 3 as applicable.

Paragraph 3.8.1.8 notes that interactivity level will be based on TRADOC PAM 350-70-12 (2013) and MIL-HDBK-29612-3A (2001) requirements with both defining 4 levels of interactivity as: Level 1 – Passive, Level 2 – Limited participation, Level 3 – Complex participation, and Level 4 – Real-time participation.

TRADOC’s circa-2017 Army-Virtual Learning Environment (AVLE) contract established a new TRADOC standard for interactivity. AVLE defined 5 levels of interactivity as: Level 0 Interactivity – Passive, Level 1 Interactivity – Limited Participation, Level 2 Interactivity – Complex Participation, Level 3 Interactivity – Real-Time Participation, and Level 4 IMI – Immersive multimedia or computer-simulated virtual or augmented reality.

Identification of the Government’s understanding and requirement for levels of interactivity is needed to support an accurate Contractor Bid preparation.

Will the Government specify whether and when the TRADOC interactivity standard thus defined will be applied to the other CBID III IMI products?

The interactivity level is based on TRADOC PAM 350-70-12 (2013) and MIL-HDBK-29612-3A (2001) requirements.

The reference mentioned, (Army Virtual Learning Environment 2017- 2022) is a separate contract action ending in FY23. This contract action does not apply to the CBID III requirement.

No change required to solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005.

3.8.1.8 IMI Specific Requirements: The approach to estimating courseware production times shall be based on the validated methodology in TP 350-70- 12, paragraph 3-11. TP 350-70-12 promotes courseware which employs techniques that require frequent student interaction with the courseware as a means of facilitating learning. This courseware design consists of learner-centered, performance-based instruction that requires students to practice what they learn, receive immediate feedback on their performance. The IMI shall allow students to progress through the learning content at their own pace. Learning activities and Practical Exercises shall be created in such a way that the student will only be required to repeat the specific areas of deficiency.

The objective courseware design is a demonstration-performance method, a learning experience in which students observe and then participate in a sequence of events designed to teach a procedure, a technique, or an operation. Additional specific requirements for this effort include:

a.The IMI interac vity level shall be based on the validated methodology in TRADOC PAM 350-70-12 and MIL-HDBK-29612-3A. The contractor shall develop the IMI with the minimum interactivity requirements identified in the Government approved IMDP.

Reference Section/Paragraph: W900KK-23-D-0TBD / W900KK23FSAMP, PWS for Sample Task Order

W900KK23FSAMP

Reference Section/Paragraph: Appendix B

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

2. Develop VACR IMI:

a. Instruction – Using TC 3-01.80 as a reference, Subject Matter Expert (SME) assistance, convert the pertinent information in TC 3-01.80 into IMI for 10 Level Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Air Defense Soldiers. The contractor is encouraged to modify and improve the content using the multimedia, personalization, voice, and image principles of multimedia development.

Paragraph 2.a. requires conversion of TC 3-01.80 information for presentation to 10 Level MOS ADA Soldiers.

Unstated is the reading level to which the IMI must be written. Further, open media has reported variation in the Army’s requirement that newly inducted Soldiers possess a high school degree or GED equivalent.

Will the Government state the required reading level to which each IMI task order must be written?

In accordance with, MIL-STD-38784B "Technical publications shall be written to the capability of the target audience for which they are intended." 4.8.3 Readability. Unless otherwise specified (see 6.2), the Reading Grade Level (RGL) shall be nine. Technical publications shall be written to the capability of the target audience for which they are intended.

Reference Section/Paragraph: W900KK-23-D-0TBD / W900KK23FSAMP, PWS for Sample Task Order

W900KK23FSAMP

Reference Section/Paragraph: Appendix B

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

b. 3D Models/Animations – 3D Models will be developed for each of the 50 aircraft identified in Table 2 below. The Government’s intent is for the contractor to develop the aircraft models at a scale and fidelity that apply to the distances of VACR (e.g., the rivets on the wings cannot be seen and do not need to be modeled).

Paragraph 2.b. states 3D models will be developed for 50 aircraft but does not specify the required level of resolution.

W900KK-23-D-0TBD / W900KK23FSAMP, PWS for Sample Task Order W900KK23FSAMP, Paragraph 3.8.1.1. requires the Contractor conduct an FEA. The results of the FEA will drive determination of appropriate levels of resolution sufficient to achieve acceptable 3D model fidelity. However, levels of required 3D model resolution significantly affect Contractors and ability to properly Bid to the PWS.

Will the Government state the expected level of resolution for 3D models identified in Paragraph 2.b?

The digital models shall be developed in a manner that takes into consideration all of the descriptive features described in TC 3-01.80 - Visual Aircraft Recognition (MAY 2017).

No change required to solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005.

Reference Section/Paragraph: W900KK-23-D-0TBD / W900KK23FSAMP, PWS for Sample Task Order

W900KK23FSAMP

Reference Section/Paragraph: Appendix D

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

The Government identifies TC 3-01.80 as GFI, but does not make it available for Contractor evaluation and assessment in preparation for the Contractor’s bid. That assessment would assess its sufficiency and should be reported as a separate CDRL supporting DI-MGMT-80596, Government Furnished Information Deficiency Report.

Further, Paragraph 3.8.1.1. requires the Contractor to conduct an FEA. Part of the FEA process requires the evaluation of available GFI. A cursory review of open sources suggests TC 3-01.80 may be insufficient as written (E.g., https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19731/armys-aircraft-recognition-guide-doesnt-know-planes/).

Will the Government provide TC 3-01.80 as well as any other available related GFI in order to assist the Contractor’s Bid process?

The government will provide the TC 3-01.80 as GFI.

W900KK23R0005_Attach_03_CBID_III_TC_3-01.80_Visual_Aircraft_ Recognition_20170505 W900KK23R0005_Attach_19_CBID_III_TC_3-01.80_Visual_Aircraft_ Recognition_20170505

Reference Section/Paragraph: W900KK-23-D-0TBD / W900KK23FSAMP, PWS for Sample Task Order

W900KK23FSAMP

Reference Section/Paragraph: Appendix D

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

The Government identifies TC 3-01.80 as GFI, but does not make it available for Contractor evaluation and assessment in preparation for the Contractor’s bid. That assessment would assess its sufficiency and should be reported as a separate CDRL supporting DI-MGMT-80596, Government Furnished Information Deficiency Report.

Further, Paragraph 3.8.1.1. requires the Contractor to conduct an FEA. Part of the FEA process requires the evaluation of available GFI. A cursory review of open sources suggests TC 3-01.80 may be insufficient as written (E.g., https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19731/armys-aircraft-recognition-guide-doesnt-know-planes/).

Will the Government add a requirement and CDRL supporting the production of a Government Furnished Information Deficiency Report under DI-MGMT-80596?

See Section L, paragraph L.2.8 for further guidance concerning GFI. The most current/updated version of TC 3-01.80 is MAY 2017 and the article was published MAR 2016. A deficiency report is not required. No further change required to solicitation W900KK-23-R-0005.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Performance Work Statement For Sample Task Order Task Order W900KK23FSAMP Reference Section/Paragraph: page 19, Section 3.1.6.4

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

3.1.6.4 Modeling and Simulation Verification and Validation (M&S V&V) The purpose of the M&S V&V process is to provide objective evidence that the performance of the IMI, when in use, meets the requirements of this PWS and that the simulator accurately and completely represents the operational environment. The contractor shall define, document, manage, and apply an M&S V&V process IAW MIL-STD-3022 that evaluates the system’s modeling of ship performance.

Section 3.1.6.4 Modeling and Simulation Verification and Validation (M&S V&V) states:

“The purpose of the M&S V&V process is to provide objective evidence that the performance of the IMI, when in use, meets the requirements of this PWS and that the simulator accurately and completely represents the operational environment. The contractor shall define, document, manage, and apply an M&S V&V process IAW MIL-STD-3022 that evaluates the system’s modeling of ship performance.”

This requirement seems to not align with the rest of the requirements, especially the reference to “ship performance”. Should this be deleted or reworded?

The government reviewed the referenced document and determined that it applies to all models as noted in MIL-STD-3022 and not specific to the "ship performance". The government will replace the wording of "ship" to reflect aircraft.

W900KK23R0005_Attach_17_CBID_III_VACR_IMI_AEC_PWS_20230113 was revised.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Performance Work Statement For Sample Task Order Task Order W900KK23FSAMP Reference Section/Paragraph: page 12, Section 3.1.3.4

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

3.1.3.4 Meetings/Minutes: The contractor shall provide the agenda for the KOM and face-to-face reviews. The contractor shall prepare and deliver the agenda in contractor format three business days prior to the meeting.

The contractor shall write minutes, review input from all team members and coordinate the minutes and action items with the attendees before adjourning the meeting. The contractor shall include any global decisions or incremental review comments in the minutes. Global comments and decisions include those that are not limited to the single course topic or lesson, but apply to multiple or all topics and lessons. The contractor shall maintain a list of decisions and comments, which shall be carried over to all subsequent minutes. The contractor shall prepare and deliver the minutes.

(DI-ADMN-81373) Presentation Material (DI-ADMIN-81505) Report, Record of Meeting/Minutes

Section 3.1.3.4 states “The contractor shall provide the agenda for the KOM and face-to-face reviews.” It is not clear which meetings are designated face-to-face. Would the government please define which meetings are designated as face-to-face?

The requirement loacted in paragraph 3.1.3.4 ofr the VACR IMI & AEC POWS is revised. The reference to face-to-face meetings is removed. The contractor shall provide the agenda for all meetings and reviews.

Following suit, performance expectations require the contractor to deliver minutes following each meeting/review.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Performance Work Statement For Sample Task Order Task Order W900KK23FSAMP Reference Section/Paragraph: page 38, Section 3.8.6

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

Section 3.8.6 references “(DI-ADMN-80925) Revisions to Existing Government Documents”, but this DI is not referenced in any of the CDRLs included in Attachments 14, 15, and 16.

Will a separate CDRL 1423 be developed for this DI?

The government will not add a referenced CDRL for DI-ADMN-80925. The DID was deleted from the Sample Task Order. PWS.

W900KK23R0005_Attach_17_CBID_III_VACR_IMI_AEC_PWS_20230113 was revised.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Performance Work Statement For Sample Task Order Task Order W900KK23FSAMP Reference Section/Paragraph: page 26, Section 3.4.2

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

3.4.2 Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) Engineering: The contractor shall develop, implement and manage a process satisfying all RAM requirements and be completely integrated within the systems engineering process. RAM status shall be included as part of each program review. The contractor shall conduct design trade-off studies to consider quantitative issues such as stress levels, selection of parts, parts simplicity, and redundancy. The contractor shall verify through analysis, the attainment of reliability requirements.

(DI-SESS-81497A) Reliability and Maintainability Predictions Report (DI-SESS-81495A) Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis Report (DI-SESS-81613A) Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) Program Plan

Section 3.4.2, Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) Engineering references three DI-SESS documents, but these DIs are not referenced in any of the CDRLs included in Attachments 14, 15, and 16.

Based on the nature of the sample task is this section (3.4.2) not applicable?

The government response is that the paragraph and related requirements have been deleted from the Sample TO PWS. The DIDs are not applicable to the order and were removed.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Performance Work Statement For Sample Task Order Task Order W900KK23FSAMP Reference Section/Paragraph: page 29, Section 3.4.5.3

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

3.4.5.3 Supportability Analysis and Logistic Product Data (LDP): In accordance with GEIA-STD-0007B, GEIA-HB-0007B, TA-HB-0007-1, the Contractor shall develop LPD and LPD summaries.

All system(s), subsystem(s), assemblies, equipment, line-replaceable units (LRUs), and each of their constituent elements and components shall have LPD developed and delivered to the Government.

All Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) and Non-Developmental Items (NDI) shall only require LPD to the LRU level. Modifications to COTS items and NDI shall disqualify the items as COTS and NDI and shall require LPD data to the component level.

(DI-SESS-81758A) Logistics Product Data (DI-SESS-81759A) Logistics Product Data Summaries

Section 3.4.5.3 “Supportability Analysis and Logistic Product Data (LDP)” references “(DI-SESS-81759A) Logistics Product Data Summaries”, but this DI is not referenced in any of the CDRLs included in Attachments 14, 15, and 16.

The Section does reference the “Logistics Product Data” DI-SESS-81758A, which does have an associated CDRL 1423. Will a CDRL 1423 be supplied for -81759A (LPD Summaries), or is it not required in this case?

The government response is that CDRL C001 Logistics Product Data (LPD) that comprises the support and support-related engineering and logistics data acquired from contractors generated as a result of the product support analysis conducted during the design, development, and initial fielding of a system or end item that the requiring authority needs to develop their internal materiel management processes is required to support of the stated paragraph section 3.4.5.3, the summaries will not be required.

The requirement DI-SESS-81759A was removed from the Sample PWS.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Performance Work Statement For Sample Task Order Task Order W900KK23FSAMP Reference Section/Paragraph: page 52, Appendix B

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

The VACR AEC student stations are described as having “cabling”, and each student station location will have an ethernet connection. What kind of network connection is envisioned? NIPRNET, SIPRNET, local LAN otherwise isolated, none? No local server is indicated.

The government response is that under paragraph 4.2.2.2 Archive of Deliverables: The contractor shall provide an Internet-based integrated digital environment to facilitate the electronic data interchange of all program data. This system would be considered a Closed Restricted Network Type III, the contractor would identify if a server is required for this effort.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Attachment 17, CBID III VACR IMI AEC PWS, Paragraph 3.8.1.2

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

Government Furnished Information states that "Appendix C lists the GFI that will be provided to support this TO." However, Appendix C of this attachment lists the Contract Data Requirements List. Please provide a list of the applicable GFI for this sample TO.

This was a typo and thank you for catching that mistake. Government has updated 3.8.1.2 listed in W900KK23R0005_Attach_17_CBID_III_VACR_IMI_AEC_PWS_20221202 to reflect the correct Appendix as D instead of C. Appendix D is listed for the Government Furnished Information.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Attachment 17, CBID III VACR IMI AEC PWS, Appendix B, item 2

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS states that "The Government has provided TC 3-01.80 as Government Furnished Information (GFI) to reference for IMI development." However, I don't see this document among the attachments. Note: I did find it through an online search … dated May 2017, is this the correct version?

The government will provide the TC 3-01.80 as GFI.

W900KK23R0005_Attach_03_CBID_III_TC_3-01.80_Visual_Aircraft_ Recognition_20170505 W900KK23R0005_Attach_19_CBID_III_TC_3-01.80_Visual_Aircraft_ Recognition_20170505

Reference Section/Paragraph: Performance Work Statement for Sample Task Order, W900KK-23-D-0TBD /

W900KK23FSAMP PWS-2023-XXX

Reference Section/Paragraph: 1. Scope, 3.8.3 Design, Installation, and Implementation of AECs

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

3.8.3 Design, Installation, and Implementation of AECs: The contractor shall be responsible for the design, development, installation, test, and support of AECs and will provide the hardware and software necessary for computer-supported training. These may include elements of interactive courseware, computer-aided instruction, and computer-managed instruction.

The PWS mentions the details regarding the student stations, but there is no information or requirements for the Instructor Station. Is an Instructor Station required?

The government response is that the instructor station would mirror the student station with the exception for specific software and net requirements to meet the standards established under paragraph 4.2.2.2 Archive of Deliverables. AEC configuration for the VACR IMI shall include 10 student workstation as stated in Appendix B. The Sample PWS is updated to include the Instructor Station and specifications.

Reference Section/Paragraph: PWS Paragraph 3.6 Test and Evaluation (T&E) states “In order to ensure quality of the IMI and TSS tasks…”

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

3.6 Test and Evaluation (T&E): The contractor shall establish a T&E program for each ID/IQ TO that verifies that the requirements have been met.

Quality control and ongoing testing are a critical aspect of the development phase. In order to ensure quality of the IMI and TSS tasks, the contractor shall develop a comprehensive plan to test both the AEC computers and the courseware.

Does TSS refer to Training Simulation Software? We don’t want to assume anything.

The Government will add the definition for the Training System Support (TSS). The TSS will consist of developing, installing, and integrating the Automated Electronic Classroom (AEC).

The current version of the Compliance Matrix incorporating these changes by reference at Section J of the solicitation is entitled W900KK23R0005_Attach_17_CBID_III_VACR_IMI_AEC_PWS_20230113

Reference Section/Paragraph: W900KK-23-D-0TBD / W900KK23FSAMP, PWS for Sample Task Order W900KK23FSAMP / Reference Section/Paragraph:

Appendix C

Attachment 17 VACR IMI & AEC PWS

W900KK-23-D-0TBD / W900KK23FSAMP, PWS for Sample Task Order W900KK23FSAMP, paragraph 3.8.1.2 states that “Appendix C lists the GFI that will be provided to support this TO.”

Appendix C within the PWS is titled “Contract Data Requirements List” with Appendix D being titled as “Government Furnished Information.”

The appendices sequencing scheme suggests two immediate possibilities;

either the two appendices are sequential and mistitled, or there may be other missing appendices relevant to this section.

Will the Government clarify the sequencing of these appendices to include missing content, should there be any?

This was a typo and thank you for catching that mistake. Government has updated 3.8.1.2 listed in W900KK23R0005_Attach_17_CBID_III_VACR_IMI_AEC_PWS_20230113 to reflect the correct Appendix as D instead of C. Appendix D is listed for the Government Furnished Information. Appendix C is Contract Data Requirements List.

Reference Section/Paragraph:

W900KK23R0005_Attach_21_CBID_III_Compliance_Matrix_ 20230113

Attachment 21 CBID III Compliance Matrix

The paragraph numbers referenced in Attachment 21 – Compliance Matrix do not align with the paragraph numbers in Section L of the RFP and in the PWS documents. Also, the order of the sub-elements in the RFP is different from the order of sub-elements in the Compliance Matrix. Please clarify whether the offeror should edit the government-provided compliance matrix to reflect the requirements in Section L or whether the government will correct and reissue the compliance matrix to accurately reflect Section L?

The government has updated the Compliance Matrix to accurately reflect Section L and PWS.

W900KK23R0005_Attach_21_CBID_III_Compliance_Matrix-1_20230113

Reference Section/Paragraph: Compliance Matrix

Attachment 21 CBID III Compliance Matrix

The L and M paragraph numbers, order of appearance in the Compliance Matrix, and L and M text are not the same between document the Compliance Matrix and the RFP.

Could the Government please clarify whether the Sub-elements are the same as the Sub-factors listed in the RFP document, and which RFP paragraphs are applicable?

Whereas Section L and Section M refer to "Sub-elements" the compliance matrix has been revised to add clarity and preclude confusion by removing all references to the term "Subfactor".

Therefore, it is not necessary to further clarify whether the Sub-elements are the same as the Sub-factors listed in the RFP document per the respondent's request since an administrative oversight has been corrected.

Now Section L/Section M and the Compliance Matrix correspondingly make reference to respective Sub-elements where appropriate.

References cited within the Compliance Matrix were validated for accuracy.

The current version of the Compliance Matrix incorporating these changes by reference at Section J of the solicitation is entitled W900KK23R0005_Attach_21_CBID_III_Compliance_Matrix_20230113

Reference Section/Paragraph:

W900KK23R0005_Attach_29_CBID_III_RFP_Price_Workboo k_20221104.xls and W900KK23R0005_Attach_29_CBID_III_RFP_Price_Workboo k_Rev_1_20221109

Attachment 29 CBID III Price Workbook – Revision 2

TO 0001,

W900KK23R0005_Attach_29_CBID_III_RFP_Price_Workbook_Rev_1_20221 109.xls, CLIN 0001, shows the White Paper Analysis is funded at $3000.00.

This is further reflected in the RFP at Section L.9.2.8.4 where it notes “L.9.2.8.4 The $3,000.00 pre-priced Firm Fixed-Price cost for Task Order 0001, White Paper (RFP Section J, Attachment 8 – Attachment 12) will be included in the Total Evaluated Price.”

W900KK23R0005_Attach_10_CBID_III_WP_PWS_20221104, Section 3.1 indicates a 45 day period of performance.

Section 3.1.1 requires the Contractor to provide “support of findings and examples of best practices for the use of IMI and incorporating potential CBID III products and services into current and future U.S. Army training objectives. Provide clear examples of training requirements, environments, challenges, methods of delivery, and explain potential for CBID III solutions to enhance training delivery and effectiveness.” Identification of “specific best practices for the selection, development, and application of CBID III products and services” is also required.

Industry practices suggest a lengthy process of research, review, interview, survey, and other fact-finding activities are needed to identify “state of the field” and future requirements. Such processes will require high-levels of institutional buy-in, support, and internal sponsorship (E.g. Rogers, E.M., 1995, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Ed.). Execution of the required analysis on the required expedited timeline would need multiple highly trained and experienced instructional specialists in order to execute on time, or may take up to a year or more to complete without augmentation. Time and personnel requirements suggest the White Paper Analysis is under-funded to achieve the desired results and that 45 days may be unrealistic if starting from scratch.

Will the Government favorably extend the period of performance, and fund commensurately for the White Paper Analysis?

As subject matter experts in the Computer Based Instructional Development arena, a significant portion of the analysis associated with the White Paper performance work statement, can be derived from an Offeror's assessment of the CBID III requirements as a whole, during the development and delivery of a written proposal in response to the solicitation. Therefore, W900KK23R0005_Attach_10_CBID_III_WP_PWS_20220113, Section 3.1 is revised to reflect a 30 day period of performance (PoP). Section 3.1 is also revised, stating the White Paper shall not exceed 10 pages. The revised PoP and length of the deliverable more reasonably reflects the level of effort necessary for performance at the price stated. No adjustment to the Firm Fixed Price stated in the amount of $3,000.00 is necessary.

1. Government Response.

a. Establishing a delivery date was not a function of the complexity and magnitude of the White Paper requirement. From a performance perspective the 45 days was deliberately proposed to accommodate Government scheduling and availability during post award activities.

b. The kind of information sought is typically requested at no cost in the form of a Request for Information during Market Research. Similarly, the nature of the information sought is often maintained by contractors as market literature to promote their products and services that is provided at no cost.

c. As subject matter experts in the Computer Based Instructional Development arena, a significant portion of the analysis associated with the White Paper performance work statement, can be derived from the successful Offeror's assessment of the CBID III requirements as a whole, during the development and delivery of a written proposal in response to the solicitation. However, the order is not intended to reimburse the Offeror for cost related to proposal preparation.

d. No adjustment to the Firm Fixed Price stated in the amount of $3,000.00 is necessary because it is the…