Attachment 8 - Questions and Answers_10 August 2023.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 44 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W911S023RMCTU
About this file
This document outlines requirements for the Army Virtual Learning Environment (AVLE) solicitation issued by the Department of the Army Materiel Command Mission and Installation Contracting Command Fort Eustis. Offerors are required to provide courseware development and modernization services, including government furnished information analyses, instructional media design packages, interactive multimedia instruction packages up to Level 4 complexity, testing packages, implementation plans, and administrative support. Pricing is to be submitted based on hourly rates for courseware development by level of interactivity according to the pricing matrix included in the solicitation. The base period of performance is one year with four one-year options to be exercised at the government's discretion. This is an 8(a) small business set-aside solicitation.
View the file
Other files
Show all 36
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions
| AVLE 2.0 | |||
| Solicitation Document | Reference/ | Questions/Comments | Answers |
| Solicitation Location | |||
| RFP | Page 45/Factor 4 | Please confirm that Utilization of Small Business Concerns and Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not applicable as this is an 8(a) solicitation. | SCP is N/A |
| RFP | Page 52/File Packaging | Please confirm the government will accept Microsoft Excel Office 365 version as most of us use this version instead of Excel 2007. | Yes. Verbiage has been updated. |
| Pricing Matrix | Rows 77-82 | Please provide the approximate duration of each object, simulation, and game. | It is based on the total predicted QTY. There is no approximate duration of each. |
| Pricing Matrix | Rows 12 - 20 | Please confirm each deliverable is based on 1 hour of courseware. | Yes, as noted in the Pricing Matrix |
| Pricing Matrix | Rows 45 - 76 | Please clarify the numbers in Column E. For example, Row 48 Checks on Learning is per hour of courseware with 2,638 as the Quantity in Column E. Please clarify 2,638. | The amount 2,638 is based on the total amount predicted for the IMI level 0 courseware, check on learning, practical exercises, pre, post test package. |
| Pricing Matrix | Total column | Total column does not have formula to add the columns. Does the government want offerors to add the formula or will the government send an updated version? | The offerors can formulate accordingly; however, the Government is not responsible for errors, etc. |
| Pricing Matrix | Pricing Matrix does not have CLIN 0007 for Service Contract Reporting and CLIN 0008 for Travel. | Pricing Matrix was updated. | |
| Pricing Matrix | Row 114 | Row 113 shows Travel. Is this travel under CLIN 0008? | Pricing Matrix was updated. |
| RFP | Page 16 | Asking the contractor to provide an FFP/hr for courseware without the opportunity to review the requirements places the contractor at extreme risk since requirements with a “level” can vary greatly. Questions concerning animations, videos, interactive maps, conversion of Flash and other legacy source files, intelligent tutors, etc. all impact the cost of completion, as does the range of interactivity that each Level encompasses. Would the Government consider having offerors price the Scenario Based Technical Response, which allows offerors to provide a more realistic price for evaluation? | The Scenario Based Technical Responses do not establish any method of future pricing. |
| PWS | 1.18.11 | Would the Government confirm and correct section 1.18.10? Shouldn't it be numbered 1.18.9.2 and section 1.18.11 be 1.18.10? | Revised |
| PWS | 5.9.3 | Did the Government intend to duplicate 5.9.1 in section 5.9.2, or should 5.9.2 be a different requirement? | Revised |
| PWS | 1.18.11: Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) | SME is listed under Video Game Designer within Key Personnel. Can the Government verify if the SME considered a separate key position/person? | Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. |
| PWS | 1.18.11: Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) | Can the Government provide a list of possible MOS codes that will be used for Task Orders so that Offerors can plan SMEs accordingly? | They will be available after award and before issuing task order solicitations. |
| PWS | 6.11.8: Other Contract Task Requirements | Are the Shells/Templates for the storyboards or the IMI? | IMI |
| PWS | 6.11.8: Other Contract Task Requirements | Are there any Product Development Requirements for the Shells/Templates? | IMI |
| Appendix F - Key Personnel - PWS Final V2 | 3 | Reference Context: PWS Appendix F, 3. Software Developer (Digital Learning Content Object Applications), lists a BS in Computer Science or Computer Engineering as a KSA requirement. |
The Computer Science or Engineering degree is indeed a common path to success as a Software Developer. However, it is not the only path with multiple alternate and “certificate” pathways now common if not prevalent in the industry. Valid alternatives include degrees in Game Development, Information Sciences, Computing and Information Sciences, Information Technology, Mathematics or Mathematical Modeling, Data Science, Software Development, Business Administration with specializations, Electrical Engineering, Cyber Security, as well as related post bachelor’s degree certifications.
The listed experience minimum requirements significantly limit the number of available employees as well as markedly increases their salaries. Instead, demonstrated experience acceptable to the Contractor provides a better predictive measure suggesting successful courseware product development and delivery.
Question: Will the Government revise its minimum degree requirements to consider comparable degrees or alternate qualification routes as discussed above?
| Question. Will the Government delete its experience requirements in order to expand the population of potential employees? | Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. | ||
| Appendix F - Key Personnel - PWS Final V2 | 3 | Reference Context: PWS Appendix F, 5. Multimedia Artist and Animator, lists a requirement for B.A/B.F.A/B.S of Graphic Arts or graphic design. |
B.A/B.F.A/B.S of Graphic Arts or graphic design can be a pathway to qualification as a multimedia artist and animator, but it is not the only pathway. Other pathways include after degree certifications as well as degrees in animation and graphics design, studio arts, visual arts directed degrees, illustration and computer design, as well as game design and animation.
The listed experience minimum requirements significantly limit the number of available employees as well as increase markedly their salaries. Instead, demonstrated experience acceptable to the Contractor provides a better predictive measure suggesting successful courseware product development and delivery.
Question: Will the Government revise its minimum degree requirements to consider comparable degrees or alternate qualification routes as discussed above?
| Question. Will the Government delete its experience requirements in order to expand the population of potential employees? | Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. | ||
| Appendix F - Key Personnel - PWS Final V2 | 6 | Reference Context: PWS Appendix F, 6. Computer Systems Engineer/Architect (Section 508 Conformance) lists a requirement for B.S. of Computer Science (specialization in Human Computer Interactions). A Computer Science degree at the BS level is typically generic consisting of approximately 48 hours of core subjects introducing the student to the field with focused specialization being less common. Common pathways for Computer Systems Engineer/Architect responsible for Section 508 Compliance include not only BS in Computer Science, but Game Design at the Bachelor’s level as well as at the Master’s level, as well as Interactive Design & Game Development. Very common is post Bachelor degree certification in Section 508 Compliance as well. Demonstrated experience provides a better predictive measure suggesting successful courseware product development and delivery. |
The listed experience minimum requirements significantly limit the number of available employees as well as increase markedly their salaries. Instead, demonstrated experience acceptable to the Contractor provides a better predictive measure suggesting successful courseware product development and delivery.
Question: Will the Government revise its minimum degree requirements to consider comparable degrees or alternate qualification routes as discussed above?
| Question. Will the Government delete its experience requirements in order to expand the population of potential employees? | Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. | ||
| Appendix F - Key Personnel - PWS Final V2 | 7 | Reference Context: PWS Appendix F, 7. Computer Programmer (Desktop or Notebook Web Applications) lists a requirement for B.S. of Computer Science (specialization in Modeling and Simulation or Web Applications). A Computer Science degree at the BS level is typically generic consisting of approximately 48 hours of core subjects introducing the student to the field with focused specialization being less common. Common pathways for Computer Programmer (Desktop or Notebook Web Applications) include not only a B.S. of Computer Science (specialization in Modeling and Simulation or Web Applications), but Simulation & Visualization as well as Computer Engineering, as well other non-traditional pathways. |
The listed experience minimum requirements significantly limit the number of available employees as well as markedly increases their salaries. Instead, demonstrated experience acceptable to the Contractor provides a better predictive measure suggesting successful courseware product development and delivery.
Question: Will the Government revise its minimum degree requirements to consider comparable degrees or alternate qualification routes as discussed above?
| Question. Will the Government delete its experience requirements in order to expand the population of potential employees? | Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. | ||
| Appendix F - Key Personnel - PWS Final V2 | 8 | Reference Context: PWS Appendix F, 8. Video Game Designer (Serious Gaming, AR and VR) lists a requirement for a B.S. of Computer Science with specialization in Computer Graphics. Common pathways also include B.S. in Computer and or Software Engineering as well as other non-traditional pathways. |
The listed experience minimum requirements significantly limit the number of available employees as well as increase markedly their salaries. Instead, demonstrated experience acceptable to the Contractor provides a better predictive measure suggesting successful courseware product development and delivery.
Question: Will the Government revise its minimum degree requirements to consider comparable degrees or alternate qualification routes as discussed above?
| Question. Will the Government delete its experience requirements in order to expand the population of potential employees? | Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. | ||
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | Lines 6-10 | Reference Context. Lines 6-10 list GFI Reports for IMI Levels 0-4. However, in practice, the GFI Report is a unitary report that addresses the sufficiency of information provided by the Government (DI-MGMT-80596) to support a given Task Order. It has no relationship to how the information will be used to present IMI-based instruction (IMI Levels 0-4). |
Recommend deletion of lines 6 through 10 and pricing the GFI Report as an "each" (EA).
| Question. Will the Government consider deleting lines 6 through 10 and instead price the GFI Report as an "EA"? | The Pricing Matrix allows for additional price (over base) for each hour of courseware per IMI Level. | ||
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | Lines 5, 24, 32 | Reference Context. Lines 5, 24, and 32 reference the base prices for GFI, IMDP, and Storyboard respectively. However, inserting the base price does not affect the resulting price for each affected CLIN when adding IMI at Levels of Interaction 0-4 to the base price. |
The Columns G through O (for lines 5, 24, and 32) are not populated to reflect inclusion of base price. In addition, associated formulas are not revised to add the base price when it is added for each column.
| Question. Will the Government revise the Pricing Matrix in order to add the base price when computing each element? | Revised | ||
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | Column P | Reference Context. Column P has no totaling formulas. |
| Question. Will the Government consider revising the Pricing Matrix to add the missing totaling formulas in Column P? | INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS states, "A complete Pricing Matrix is required for the entire performance period (supported by rationale) to include all cell formulas." Revised | ||
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | Lines 39, 102 | Reference Context. Validation Plan is listed twice (lines 39 and 102). Validation Plan is better considered as a component of Evaluation, CLIN 0005, as listed at Line 102. |
| Question. Will the Government remove requirement for Validation from Line 39 in order to support accurate Contractor costing? | Line 39 is Validation Plan and Line 102 is Validation Report | ||
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | Line 40 | Reference Context. Test Package is listed twice (lines 40 and 85). Test Package is better considered as a component of Implementation, CLIN 0004, as already listed at Line 85. |
| Question. Will the Government remove requirement for Test Package from Line 40 in order to support accurate Contractor costing? | Revised | ||
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | Multiple Lines | Reference Context. Price Matrix formulae are missing from cells in Columns G-P for lines 47-51, 53-57, 59-63, 65-69, 71-75, 103-104, and 108-112. |
| Question. Will the Government insert the formulas missing from the missing cells in order to support Contractor pricing? | INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS states, "A complete Pricing Matrix is required for the entire performance period (supported by rationale) to include all cell formulas." Revised | |
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | ||
| Attachment 1 - PWS Final V2 | Line 77 | Reference Context. Lines 77 through 81 reflect "EA" (Each) as Unit(s) of Measure. However, this measure does not account for the varying complexity among models. Simple models can be created quickly by appropriate employees of little skill, but complex models may require much time and effort by only the most skilled employees. |
| Question. Will the Government favorably consider revising the Pricing Worksheet to include complexity as separate pricing considerations for Lines 77 through 81? If this revision cannot be made, will the Government provide information on the plan to execute over and above work? | Revised Pricing Matrix | |
| Schedule B SF 1449 | Reference Context: The SF 1449 indicates we should provide a price for CLIN 0007, Service Contract Reporting. However, there is no corresponding CLIN in Attachment 3 – AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix. |
| Question: Does the Government intend for us to price CLIN 0007, or is it to be Not Separately Priced (NSP)? | Revised | ||
| Attachment 3 AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | Page 7 | Reference Context: In the Option years, the pricing template contains formulas which increase the previous year's price by 3% per year. |
| Question: Is the Government directing contractors to use 3% escalation for the out years, or are we allowed to alter that percentage to reflect current economic conditions and our estimated escalation forecast? | Revised | ||
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | Line 85 | Reference Context. Line 85 reflects a Unit of Measure (Column D) that the Contractor cannot cost. DI-SESS-81525C (2014) identifies use of the Test Package to evaluate learning objectives or performance standards as might be done using paper-based tests. However, previous Task Orders have required gaming and/or simulation-based testing that is not accounted for by an "EA" Unit of Measure. |
| Question. Will the Government favorably consider revising the Pricing Worksheet to include complexity as separate pricing considerations for Line 85? | Revised Pricing Matrix |
| Solicitation |
Attachment 1 AVLE 2.0 Base PWS PWS Appendix F Key Personnel (2) Staffing Approach Key Personnel Key Personnel
Reference Context:
Solicitation file: b. Resumes for the Key Personnel (Prime and Subcontractor, a list of other positions the offeror considers key, the rationale for that designation and the qualifications that will be required of these key positions (i.e., degree, certifications, licenses, relevant experience). See PWS section 1.18.
Attachment 1 Base PWS file 1.18.2 Key Personnel. The following labor categories will be needed at the task order level and are not considered key personnel for the base contract.
Project Manager.
Software Developer (Digital Learning Content Object Applications) Instructional Designer and Technologist Multimedia Artist and Animator Computer Systems Engineer/Architect (Section 508 Conformance) Computer Programmer (Desktop or Notebook Web Applications) Video Game Designer (Serious Gaming, AR and VR)
PWS Appendix F Key Personnel The contractor shall identify a Program Manager, Project Manager, Software Developer, Instructional Designer and Technologist, Multimedia Artist and Animator, Computer Systems Engineer/Architect, Computer Programmer, and Video Game Designer with the below listed Knowledge Skills and Abilities (KSAs) who is responsible for the performance of the work for the duration of the task order.
Question: In addition to providing a Program Manager Key Personnel Resume, will the Government clarify if Key Personnel resumes are required in the solicitation response for the following positions listed in Appendix F Key Personnel: Project Manager, Software Developer, Instructional Systems Design, Multimedia Artist and Animator, Computer Systems Engineer/Architect, Computer Programmer, Video Game Designer?
| Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. | ||
| W911S023RMCTU | Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | Lines 40 and 85 of the Pricing Matrix both reflect Test Package and the same PWS section (6.1.13) as deliverables to be priced. |
| Question: will the Government confirm that the same Test Package deliverable is to be priced twice in the Pricing Matrix? | Revised | ||
| W911S023RMCTU | Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | For each Level of IMI within the GFI Report, IMDP, and Storyboards sections of the Pricing Matrix, each Level states that the price on the applicable line is "additional price (over base);" however, there is no formatted cell for the Base Price for each of these deliverables. |
| Question: will the Government confirm that either (1) the price for each Level of IMI within these deliverable sections is the total price for that deliverable at that Level of IMI rather than an "additional price (over base)" or (2) the specific cells in which the Base price is to be entered? | Additional price (over base) | ||
| W911S023RMCTU | Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | Below each of the IMI Package Levels in the Pricing Matrix, numbers appear in Column E: |
2,638 (under Level 0) 4,220 (under Level 1) 9,144 (under Level 2) 9,762 (under Level 3) 10,417 (under Level 4)
| Question: As the lines on which these numbers appear are not priced, will the Government explain the significance of such numbers? | Its a total predicted quantity (amount of courseware hours) based on each IMI Level. | ||
| W911S023RMCTU | Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | Lines 39 and 103 would appear to represent duplicate pricing of the Validation Plan deliverable, with the pricing of 16 units on line 39 and the pricing of 16 units of Validation Plan within the 16 units of Validation Reports on line 102 of the Pricing Matrix. |
| Question: will the Government confirm that the same Validation Plan deliverable is to be priced twice in the Pricing Matrix or otherwise state on which line Validation Plan is to be priced? | Line 39 is Validation Plan and Line 102 is Validation Report | |||
| W911S023RMCTU | RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 Conform Copy, Clauses Incorporated by | |||
| Reference/Full Text, pages 27-43 | Courseware creation and modernization projects predictably take several months | |||
| to complete when performed in accordance with industry standards. Costs incurred for this type of work can be substantial and create undue financial hardship for 8(a) Small Businesses without regular progress payments. In light of the agency’s plans for payment to the awardee, will FAR 52.232-16 be incorporated into the contract? | Each Task Order will determine payment and invoicing terms and conditions. | |||
| W911S023RMCTU | RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 Conform Copy | In light of the agency’s plans for payment to the awardee, will FAR 32.502-3 be | ||
| incorporated into the contract? | It will not be incorporated. | |||
| W911S023RMCTU | RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 Conform Copy | Will the agency consider revising its planned payment provision to allow | ||
| progress payments, given that the contract is being set aside for 8(a) and small businesses? | Each Task Order will determine payment and invoicing terms and conditions. | |||
| • | PWS: Part 1 – General, 1.7 Quality Control, pg. 2 & Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, pg. 53 (ii) Volume II – Management/Staffing Approach, (1) Management Approach, c. | The PWS states, “The Contractor shall provide to the Government the QCP with their proposal submission.” However, the instructions, specifically Addendum to 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors, pg. 56, (ii) Volume II, c., does not mention a QCP plan only a “Quality Control Approach as to how to they will manage the contract/task order performance and ensure quality services are provided; including services provided by teaming partners.” |
| Q: A discrepancy exists between the PWS and the Addendum. We respectfully ask the Government to clarify whether a Quality Control Plan is required with proposal submission or if will be required after award. If required with submission, please state where the QCP should be placed within the Volumes. | The solicitation asks for the Quality Control Approach. The Quality Control Plan is provided within 15 days of award and described in the PWS. | |||
| • | PWS: Part 1 – General, 1.19 Contingency Plan for Pandemic/Weather, pg. 8 | The PWS states, “The Contractor shall provide to the Government the Contingency Plan for Pandemic/Weather with the proposal submission and in individual TOs, if requested.” However, Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, does not mention a Contingency Plan for Pandemic/Weather to be included in any of the five volumes. |
| Q: Will the Government require a Contingency Plan for Pandemic/Weather with the proposal submission? If so, in which volume should it be included and will it have a page count? | PWS Revised | |||
| • | Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, pg. 57 (ii) Volume II – Management/Staffing Approach, (2) Staffing Approach, b. & c. | Resumes for the Key Personnel (Prime and Subcontractor, a list of other positions the offeror considers key, the rationale for that designation and the qualifications that will be required of these key positions (i.e., degree, certifications, licenses, relevant experience). |
The offeror shall provide Letters of Commitment (signed within 60 days of proposal submission) and resumes for key personnel.
Q: Instruction requires resumes for Key Personnel designated by the Government and requires those resumes to be submitted as part of the Offerors’ proposal. For other positions the Offerors nominates as “key”, will the Government make any judgment as to whether it agrees with the offeror’s designation, and will the offeror be required to submit resumes for those individuals with the proposal?
| Q: Does the requirement for “Letters of Commitment (signed within 60 days of proposal submission)” apply to all labor categories (LCAT) or just the key personnel? | Solicitation has one Key Personnel and Appendix F was removed. Key Personnel are defined in the PWS and Letters of Commitment are for Key Personnel. | |||
| • | PWS: 1.18 Key Personnel & Appendix F: Key Personnel | A discrepancy exists between the PWS qualifications required for the Key Personnel positions and the qualifications listed in Appendix F. |
| Q: We respectfully ask the Government to specify which set of qualifications/document the offeror should follow to when selecting qualified individuals for the key personnel positions. | Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. | |||
| • | Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, pg. 59 (v) Volume V – Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations | The instructions state, “The offeror shall provide the company/division’s street address, county and facility code, CAGE Code, UIC, size of business (large or small), and labor surplus area designation, if applicable. |
| Q: Please clarify what “UIC” is/represents or if the Government intended the sentence to read “UEI”, Unique Entity Identification number. | Revised | ||
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix, general question | Will the Government consider an alternative pricing model? Traditional |
interactive courseware development projects are priced in accordance with standard estimating models such as the Army TRADOC or Chapman Alliance Models whereby Level of Effort (LOE) multipliers are applied for the various levels of interactivity. These multipliers are inclusive of each of the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) phases (e.g., analyze, design, develop, implementation and evaluation (ADDIE)). The itemized products listed in the Attachment 3 Pricing Matrix would be rolled up at the appropriate phase of the ISD model. The output would be the price of one seated runtime hour IMI Levels one (1) through three (3). As there is not a one-for-one correlation for IMI Level 4 (complex media), an estimated cost could be
| provided for a sample product with more detailed specifications | The Pricing Matrix has been revised and will be the model used for this requirement. | |
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix, CLIN 0006 Administrative, line | ||
| 109 Weekly Status Reports, Column E Total Predicted QTY | The Weekly Status Report currently states a quantity for 12. Should the | |
| quantity be changed to 52 to indicate the number of weeks per year? | Pricing proposal should reflect work to meet PWS requirement 1.17.5 and 1.17.6 | |
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix, CLIN 0006 Administrative, line | ||
| 110 IPR Milestone Schedule, Column E Total Predicted QTY | Is one IPR Milestone Schedule required per task order? Is an IPR |
Milestone Schedule required each month since the quantity is listed as 12? Please
| clarify how offerors are to price a quantity of 12 IPR Milestone Schedules. | There should be one Milestone Schedule that includes the IPR meeting. That schedule should be updated each month. | |
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix, CLIN 0006 Administrative, line | ||
| 111 Task Order Meetings, Column E Total Predicted QTY | As it currently states in line 111, a quantity of 1 is required per Task |
Order. Is this a 1 “each” requirement? Can the Government delineate the number of
| meetings anticipated for each Task Order? | The contractor creates the milestone schedule which has to be approved by the Government. | |
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix, CLIN 0006 Administrative, line | ||
| 112 QCP, Column E Total Predicted QTY | It currently states in line 112, a quantity of 1 each is required. What |
comprises the unit price for the QCP (e.g., the content of the QCP or the ? What is
| the scope required in the QCP? Is this per Task Order? | The Pricing Matrix calls for a general QCP at the base level. | |
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix, CLIN 0006 Administrative, line | ||
| 113 Travel, Column E Total Predicted QTY | To ensure equal competition amongst all offerors, can the Government |
include a dollar value for Travel? Can the Government confirm that “Travel” is Cost
| Reimbursable (CR) only? | Was depicted in the solicitation and is updated in the Pricing Matrix. | ||
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix, rows 77-81 | There is insufficient detail to accurately price CLIN 0003 items listed in |
rows 77 through 81 of the Pricing Matrix. For example, is texturing for 2D/3D models and animations required? Is 360 degree viewing required? What level of branching is required for simulations? What are the desired learning outcomes or competencies for simulations and gaming etc.? Will the Government provide an example or representative simulation, game and 3D models/animation? Offerors will not be able to provide an accurate price that covers each type of requirement.
Offerors could provide rates for personnel that would perform the work, however, without knowing the amount of work for each item in line 77-81, offerors cannot
| provide an accurate price. | Revised Pricing Matrix | ||
| Attachment 3-AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix, rows 4-10, GFI Reports | GFI analyses are typically conducted at the individual project or course of |
instruction level rather than course runtime hour. Pricing GFI Reports as provided in Attachment 3 would be largely based on many assumptions (e.g., equal quantity, quality and complexity of the GFI for each course). Will the Government consider providing a representative project/course with GFI so that each offeror can provide
| more accurate pricing data? | The Government is not providing any representative work at this time based on this requirement. The pricing matrix describes all that is needed for this requirement. | ||
| Attachment 3 - AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix | Due to the nature of IMI level 4, courseware hour may not be an effective |
unit of measure. Will the Government consider changing the unit of measure to per
| user interaction instead of courseware hours? | No. Level 4 is identified in TP 350-70-12 and must be priced similarly to the other levels to maintain pricing conformity. | ||
| Attachment 3-AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix (entire global) | Industry standards for pricing interactive courseware typically includes a |
range Level of Effort (LOE) multipliers for each level of interactive multimedia instruction (1 through 4). The LOE is then decomposed to derive a parametric Basis of Estimate (BOE) algorithm that decomposes the seated runtime hour according to the ADDIE model and aligning the required labor categories for each phase/task area. Will the Government consider revising the pricing model to units of instruction (e.g., labor hours for development) for each of the interactivity levels instead of the
| current pricing requirement? | Please adhere to the pricing matrix, it provides all the details regarding the interactivity levels as well as the pricing requirements that is needed regarding the courseware. | |
| RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 Conform Copy, pages 57-58, section | ||
| 2.c.iii.5 Section 5 – Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheet | Up to eight (8) past performance references may be submitted. Three |
sheets are required by the prime and two sheets are required by the 20% workshare subcontractor. How does an offeror meet the page count restriction of 5 pages each
| for the Contract Reference Sheets? Please clarify. | Revised | |
| RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 Conform Copy, Section Evaluation (5)c | ||
| (iv), page 49 | Are the quantities contained in the SF1449 CLINS representative of the |
number of Tasks Orders to be released during each period of performance, or are
| they a nominal amount to be used for Total Evaluated Price? | The quantities are estimated and used for the TEP | |
| RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 Conform Copy, Section Evaluation (5)c | ||
| (iv), page 49 | Will the Government be amenable to a tiered evaluation approach, with |
technical acceptability and relevance of past performance determined in the first stage, including oral presentations of sample work. After an initial down select, remaining competitors will have the opportunity to present final evaluation notices and pricing for consideration by the Government. This evaluation method will
| minimize risk to the Government. | The government will follow the process identified in the solicitation. | ||
| RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 Conform Copy, Section 2 (iii), page 55 | Does the Government require Client Authorization Letters from all team | ||
| members? | The solicitation requires Client Authorization Letters from all teaming members that are being used as past performance references. | ||
| RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 Conform Copy, Section 2 (iii), page 55 | Does the Government require Organizational Structure Change History | ||
| for all team members? | The solicitation requires Organizational Structure Change History from all teaming members that are being used as past performance references. | ||
| Attachment 1 - AVLE 2.0 BASE PWS_FINAL V2, Section 1.16, pages | |||
| 3-4 | Will the Government require all offeror’s personnel supporting AVLE 2.0 |
be either U.S. Citizens, or Green Card holders, or consider requiring NACI checks to
| protect the GFI/controlled data? | The Government will require all personnel to be either U.S. citizens, etc, for this contract. | ||
| Attachment 1 - AVLE 2.0 BASE PWS_FINAL V2, Section 1.17, page 5 | Does the Government anticipate a staggered release of Task Orders |
(e.g., majority released in FY4Q)? Can the government provide an estimated
| number of Task Orders for release? | No. Based on funding and requirements VPDE | ||
| Attachment 1 - AVLE 2.0 BASE PWS_FINAL V2, Section 1.17, page 6 | Please clarify the number of Milestone Schedules required for each Task |
Order? Is an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) required for the base contract by
| period of performance? | There is no specific number of milestone schedules required. What is required is an updated milestone schedule when any change in delivery in or review periods occur. | ||
| Attachment 1 - AVLE 2.0 BASE PWS_FINAL V2, Section 5.4.1, page 25 | The length of time to complete a GFI analysis varies by the amount and |
complexity of the materials shared by the Government. Is 15 days required, or will
| the Government specify the deadline based on each Task Order’s specifications? | Between 15-20 days; there is a range. | |
| Attachment 1 - AVLE 2.0 BASE PWS_FINAL V2, Section 6.13.1, page | ||
| 35 | At what point during the execution of a Task Order does the Army’s |
Business Rules and Best Practices (BRBP) become static? Changes to the BRBP late in the development of a project can cause significant rework, impacting cost and
| schedule. | With regards to the implementation phase; that's when the BRBP come into phase. | ||
| RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 Conform Copy | Will the Government add Contract Data Requirement Lists (CDRLs) to |
the solicitation? This will greatly reduce risk to the Government during contract implementation. The CDRL will include the timing and format required for the data deliverables. Specifically, DD Form 1423 is used and provides a standardized way to clearly itemize the Government's data requirements. DFARS 215.470(b) states:
"When data are required to be delivered under a contract, include DD Form 1423, Contract Data Requirements List, in the solicitation." DFARS Part 215 supplements FAR Part 15, and FAR Part 15 applies to all negotiated acquisitions, regardless of
| dollar value. | Yes, we will adhere to the CDRLs to reduce the risk to the gov't during contract implementation. | |
| PWS Appendix F Key Personnel, Section 1, page 1; Attachment 1 - | ||
| AVLE 2.0 BASE PWS_FINAL V2, Section 1.18.2, page 7 | Appendix F states that all positions are Key Personnel, however, the |
PWS states that all positions (other than the PM) will be needed at the Task Order level and are not considered Key Personnel for the base contract. What positions are the Key Personnel? Which positions require resumes to be submitted? Please
| clarify. | Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. | ||
| PWS Appendix F Key Personnel, Section 1.1.1, page 1 | Will the Government consider a BS in Instructional Design and a PMP |
certification in lieu of a BS/BA in business, management, engineering, or science for
| the Program Manager’s education requirements? | We are evaluating with the criteria stated in the solicitation. | ||
| PWS Appendix F Key Personnel, Section 2.1.1, page 1 | Will the Government consider a BS in Instructional Design and a PMP |
certification in lieu of a BS/BA in business, management, engineering, or science for
| the Project Manager’s education requirements? | We are evaluating with the criteria stated in the solicitation. | |
| Attachment 2 - AVLE 2.0 Technical - Scenario Based Technical |
Responses; Scenario-Based Technical Responses, Courseware Creation, sixth
| bullet; and Courseware Modernization, sixth bullet | Is “AMLS” supposed to read “ALMS” Content Test Environment Content | |
| Communication Trace Logs? | Adjusted accordingly. | |
| RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 Conform Copy; and Attachment 1 - AVLE | ||
| 2.0 BASE PWS_FINAL V2; ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION | Where in the offeror’s proposal do offerors address the PWS |
requirements? The proposal instructions do not address the PWS requirements.
However, in the reference evaluation section it states, “The Government will
| evaluate…for accomplishing all the tasks in the PWS.” Please advise. | We are evaluating with the criteria stated in the solicitation. | ||
| RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 Conform Copy | Does the government intend to issue CDRLs that state delivery, review |
and acceptance criteria for Task Order deliverables? CDRLs are essential authoritative documents that significantly lower the risk for project schedules in areas such as government reviews and contractor adjudication cycles for project
| deliverables | Yes, we will adhere to the CDRLs to reduce the risk to the gov't during contract implementation. | |
| Appendix F – Key Personnel, AVLE 2.0 Performance Work Statement, | ||
| Page 10, ARMY GAMES FOR TRAINING | Will the government consider expanding the scope of suitability for |
beyond just 5 years paid experience working with Army Games for Training (AGFT) applications? For example, the Video Game Developer requirement includes 5 years paid experience developing or working with Army Games for Training. The definition of that lists very specific games (VBS3, BiLAT, Tactical Iraq, etc.). This is a very narrow list and would significantly limit the ability of key personnel that also have experience working in other Defense gaming and Level 3 and 4 applications as well as those who have a majority of their experience working in commercial and AAA
| gaming – which defines the state of the art for gaming technology. | Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. | ||
| Attachment 3-AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix, rows 12-19 | Will the government consider providing a sample task for the Analysis |
items listed in the Pricing Matrix. It would be difficult to derive a reasonable price based solely on the data provided in lines 12 through 19. Pricing would be largely assumption based. Typical industry standard LOE models for instructional content development would include the items listed under the overall LOE per seated runtime hour for Instructor Led Training and Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI)
| levels 1 through 3. | We are evaluating with the criteria stated in the solicitation. | ||
| Attachment 3-AVLE 2.0 Pricing Matrix, rows 23-29 | Will the government consider providing a sample task for the |
Instructional Media Design Package (IMDP) items listed in the Pricing Matrix. It would be difficult to derive a reasonable price based solely on the data provided in lines 24 thru 29. Pricing would be largely assumption based. Typical industry standard LOE models for IMDPs would be largely based on the quantity of training
| tasks, learning objectives and domain of learning. | We are evaluating with the criteria stated in the solicitation. | ||||
| RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 Conform Copy, Section (iii) VOLUME III: | |||||
| Factor 3 – Past Performance, Section 6, page 58 of 61 | When citing a subcontract as a past performance reference, who does | ||||
| the offeror send the PPQ to for completion? | Stated in the solicitation | ||||
| 1. | RFP page 45 | In Para (4) on page 45, the RFP states “The government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractors).” In the context of the term “Offeror”, will the government confirm that this refers to the Prime Contractor? | Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. We consider the offeror to be the prime contractor. | ||
| 2. | RFP pages 57 and 58 | Discussion: It is unclear the way the government intends to qualify past performance references from Prime contractor teammates. For example, page 57 of 61 of the RFP states, “Three (3) sheets identifying active or completed contracts, either Government or commercial, for the prime, team, and/or joint venture.” This would imply that the 3 sheets could come from anyone on the team or the JV partner, and not require that the Prime 8(a) vendor or managing partner to a JV (i.e., 8(a) business concern) would not be required to produce any Past Performance supporting their qualifications. |
In February 2023, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) upheld a protest (https://www.gao.gov/assets/820/817444.pdf) that “clarified that in evaluating the experience of a mentor-protégé JV for a set-aside procurement, the agency must evaluate each JV member’s experience individually, as well as any experience of the JV itself.”
| Question: Will the government confirm that it intends the criteria for past performance submission requires that either the 8(a) Prime contractor or the managing partner (i.e., the 8(a) company) submit a minimum number (e.g., 3) of its own past performance references? | Past Performance was revised. | ||||
| 3. | RFP, page 54 and PWS, page 7 | Will the government confirm that the Program Manager is the only position considered key personnel and, therefore, is the only resume and letter of commitment that offerors are required to submit? | Confirmed. Only one Key Personnel and therefore only one resume and one LOC. | ||
| Are the table of contents, list of key terms and their definitions, list of acronyms and abbreviations, and list of tables and drawings excluded from the page count? | Government is following the guidance established in the solicitation. | ||||
| CLIN 0008 has estimated cost on page 8 of RFP W911S023RMCTU0001, but 1008, 2008, 3008, and 4008 all say NET AMT. Which should it be? | Should be NET AMT. System glitch which will be corrected on the award. | ||||
| We see more and more Army products being hosted on Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) to support access to a Joint Forces target audience. Does the AVLE contract anticipate the need for a vendor with this experience? | At this time all courseware will be hosted on an Army platform. | ||||
| 4. | Reference RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 – Factor 1: Technical Approach – Scenario Based–Para b. Courseware Modification (Page 45 of 61): | Since LMS platforms differ throughout DoD organization (i.e., ALMS, Blackboard, JKO, etc.) could the government provide the specific LMS the course is being migrated from and to? This will allow us to provide a more specific approach | The specific location for hosting courseware will be identified on the individual task orders. | ||
| 5. | Reference RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 – (4a) Factor 3: Past Performance (Page 45 of 61): This section references, … Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.” | We normally see these provisions related to full and open government procurements. Since this is being contracted under the SBA Small Business 8(a) program, will the government confirm that a small business subcontracting plan is not applicable? | SCP is not applicable and language was removed. | ||
| 6. | Reference RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 – (4a) Factor 3: Past Performance (Page 46 of 61): This section references, “… same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 541511” | Since this is a training development contract, we have seen several NAICS used for AVLE-type services. Can the government please clarify which NAICS it considers the same or similar to this requirement? | 541511 | ||
| 7. | Reference RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 – (4) Factor 3: Past Performance (Page 45 of 61): This section references, “… IAW this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D” then on page 47 of 61, it references “PPQs (Attachment 7)”. | The solicitation documentation has another file represented as Appendix D and we don’t see the PPQ provided as Attachment 7. Can the government provide this document? | Language revised and Attachment 7 is the PPQ. | ||
| 8. | Reference RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 – (4) Factor 3: Past Performance (Page 57/58 of 61): This section references the required use of PPQs (Attachment 7). | QUESTION: If CPARs exist for a contract can those CPARs be provided in lieu of the PPQ? | |||
| • | Discussion: We ask this question to address situations where the technical and contract office POCs for the referenced task order/work are not available to complete a PPQ because they now work elsewhere or have left government service. |
QUESTION: Can the Government clarify the instructions requiring offerors to send PPQs to both the Government Contracting Authority and the customer’s technical representative?
| QUESTION: Does this mean the Government expects the customer and contracting agency to each provide a PPQ, or is it one PPQ per contract? | The Government has the right to look at all past performance outlets. Only PPQs were requested with the submittal. | ||||
| 9. | Reference RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 – (4a) Factor 3: Past Performance (Page 46 of 61): Under EVALUATION, Factor 3, Past Performance, item (b), on page 46 of 61, the RFP states “Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP.” However, under INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Factor 3, Past Performance, item (5), on page 57 of 61, the RFP states “The offeror shall submit a minimum of five (5) but no more than a total of eight (8) Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets identifying active or completed contracts, either Government or commercial.” | Will the government clarify whether offerors should submit “all” contracts as noted on page 46, or no more than eight contracts as noted on page 57? | Past Performance was revised. | ||
| 10. | Reference RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 – (4a) Factor 3: Past Performance (Pages 51 and 54 of 61) | Will the government consider increasing the page limit for Volume III from 25 pages to 50 pages? This will allow offerors to include the 8 Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets at 5 pages each (40 pages total), as well as the required Contract Descriptions (assume 2 pages), Performance Summary Page (5 pages), and Organizational Structure Change History (3 pages). | Past Performance was revised. | ||
| 11. | Reference RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 – (4a) Factor 3: Past Performance (Page 54 of 61) | Will the government confirm that resumes should include relevant experience/positions beyond merely the “Present Position” as indicated in the “Resume Contents” table on page 54 of 61? | It is up to the contractor to provide relevant information related regarding there present position in the resume content | ||
| 12. | Reference RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 – (4) Factor 3: Past Performance (Page 57/58 of 61): On page 57, it states that “Two (2) sheets from each subcontractor who will be completing 20% or more of the technical work will be required.” However, in the preceding sentence it states that 3 sheets will be provided for the prime, team, and/or Joint Venture. Nowhere in this guidance does it indicate that the prime vendor or managing partner of the JV (i.e. 8(a) partner) is required to provide a past performance reference. Given the SBA’s limitations in subcontracting under a Prime/Sub relationship and the rules governing Joint Ventures requires that an 8(a) Prime must execute a 50% workshare and a Managing Partner to a JV must execute a 40% workshare we feel that a qualified prime or managing partner should have demonstrated PP supporting management and execution of AVLE. | Would the government consider amending the requirements for Past Performance to necessitate that the 8(a) Prime or JV Managing Partner produce at least 2 of 5 of 3 of 8 past performance citations based on work that they have previously primed and managed? | Past Performance was revised. | ||
| 13. | Reference RFP W911S023RMCTU0001 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – Para 2.C.(ii)(2)b. and c. Page (Page 54 of 61): This section addresses Key Personnel Résumés, plural. These sections also address Key Personnel Résumés for both the Prime and the Subcontractor. | There is only one Key Person listed in the RFP at the Base Contract Level, The Program Manager. The remaining Key Persons in the Statement of Work are at the Task Order Level. Is the Government expecting industry to identify and secure resumes and letters of commitment for individuals at the task order level with this submission? | Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. | ||
| 14. | Attachment_1_-_AVLE_2.0_BASE_PWS_FINAL_V2 Section 1.18. Key Personnel: | QUESTION: Since this is an Army Virtual Learning Environment contract and mainly support Army Training and Education products, would the government add education degrees to the list for both the Program and Project Manager? |
QUESTION: PWS 1.18.1.1.1 under Program Manager has Minimum of Five (5) years of experience as Senior Level Manager and Appendix F has Minimum of ten (10) years of experience as Senior Level Manager. Please provide correct years?
| QUESTION: PWS 1.18.1.1.2 under Program Manager has Minimum of Five (5) years of demonstrated management or project level management experience and Appendix F has Minimum of seven (7) years of demonstrated management or project level management experience. Please provide correct years? | Appendix F was removed. See Section 1.18. - Key Personnel of the PWS. | ||||
| 15. | Attachment_1_-_AVLE_2.0_BASE_PWS_FINAL_V2 Section 1.18. Key Personnel: Section 1.18.2 states that “the following labor categories will be needed at the task order level and are not considered key personnel for the base contract” and lists PM, software developer, instructional designer and Technologist, Multimedia artist and Animator, Computer Systems Engineer/Architect, Computer programmer, video name designer, and SMEs (pages 7-8). In Appendix F – Key Personnel, Program Manager, Project Manager, Software Developer, Instructional Designer and Technologist, Multimedia Artist and Animator, Computer Systems Engineer/Architect, Computer Programmer, and Video Game Designer are all listed as Key Personnel. | Please clarify which reference is correct? | Correct reference is 1.18. Appendix F was removed. | ||
| 16. | Attachment_1_-_AVLE_2.0_BASE_PWS_FINAL_V2 Section 1.19. Contingency Plan for Pandemic/Weather: States the Contractor shall provide to the Government the Contingency Plan for Pandemic/Weather with their proposal submittal and in individual TOs, if requested. | Because of the limited page count in Volume II, would the government remove the need to submit this plan with the proposal and replace with submitting 30-days after contract award? | Revised |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .