RFQ W91QF022Q1005 Questions.docx

RFQ W91QF022Q1005 Questions

1. Paragraph 1.5.11, Post Award Conference/Periodic Progress Meetings – May attendance at these meetings be done virtually?

· All meetings are assumed to be virtual unless otherwise noted.

2. Paragraph 1.5.14.1: Guard, Reserve, and Retired Military Rank – Could Contracting elaborate more on this new requirement? Given that military experience is necessary (like Joint Specialty Officer status in paragraph 1.5.1), as requisites for winning a contract, how does an instructor separate rank from his or her experience? That experience in career military duties and education provides credibility to the contractor for the work to be performed. Could this requirement be modified, or better defined so that it does not interfere with the contractor’s ability to share military experience with students, fellow faculty, and others when it is relevant to the work being performed?

· The key words of this are “while undertaking the duties of this contract.” In using their rank, they may be mistaken as representatives of the Government, which is a violation of FAR 7.503(d)(13). The documents as a part of a quote submission may use this information. An introduction forum/speech may identify their former rank. Items under 1.5.14 (i.e., email signature blocks, answering telephones, etc.) may not.

3. Paragraph 4: Contractor provided Equipment – We understand that “The contractor is solely responsible for ensuring that their personal devices and equipment are operating properly.” However, given the issues encountered with on-boarding and sustaining Compass, Army 365, and other programs, and insufficient guidance from the G-6, the Carlisle Barracks help desk is still needed to “troubleshoot” connectivity issues between the contractor-owned laptop and USAWC network and programs. Even when personal computers are “operating properly,” there may be issues with some of the programs used in the performance of this contract. Is it possible to add to the contracts a requirement that the government will provide assistance within 24 hours to DDE FIs when the contract FI is unable to access the required programs? In short, “ensuring that their personal devices and equipment are operating properly,” is not a black and white issue when dealing with USAWC and Army systems; personal devices may be operating properly and still not interface correctly with USAWC and Army systems.

· The PWS requires only that the physical computer is in working order and is up-to-date as listed. Help with system issues that belong to the Government remains with the Government.

· As much as MICC-Carlisle Barracks would like to guarantee the 24-hour terms, the NEC Help Desk is a contract that is not in our control. If the FI is ‘down’ for an extended period, please contact the COR to let them know.

4. Paragraph 5.1.2, List of Major Fields of Study – Should this list also include Regional Studies to reflect topics taught in DE2304, just as Strategic Leadership and Ethics reflects topics taught in DE2301 under the list of major fields of study? The theater strategy and campaign planning exercises of DE2309 and DE2310, and resident courses’ exercises draw upon regional studies knowledge.

· Yes, it is true that regional issues do come up during second year during both exercises in DE2309, DE2310 and the Matrix game in the summer residence courses, but unlike with first year and DE2304 where regional studies is a necessity, our focus is on the operational learning outcomes associate with DoD and a Joint environment, along with processes and procedures. Regional experience is nice to have but is not a requirement, especially as we adjust locations based on changing priorities. Therefore, those major fields of study listed will remain our prioritized expectation.

5. Paragraphs 5.2.2 and 5.2.9 – These paragraphs are “blank,” was there supposed to be text there? If these paragraphs are extraneous, will the subsequent paragraphs be renumbered or will a “paragraph reserved” be added?

· I am as mystified as you as to how those numbers got there… they were not on the word document. I have corrected the solicitation to match how it will be awarded.

6. Paragraphs 6.2.3, Faculty Training Sessions and 6.10, Training – Since the government has added many more hours for forums and exercises in paragraph 6.4.1 with “forums [that] can take many forms” and presumably much more time devoted to exercises, should the government add additional hours for training to cover new and changing requirements? The government did just this when it added paragraph 6.11.11 to cover additional mandatory training when it is needed. As with all training, this would be at the option of the government, so only paid when used. The government should ensure that sufficient training sessions are planned to achieve the outcomes desired for the training (i.e., Matrix games or whatever follows).

· The training that is with 6.2.3 and 6.4.1 should be priced as a part of the associated CLINS. The training under 6.11.11 should be considered an overhead cost. An additional CLIN will NOT be added to any contract; this is standard operating procedure across all USAWC contracts.

7. Paragraph 6.4.1, Conduct and Evaluate Forums. The numbers of hours expected to complete this CLIN is 260 cumulative hours for forum and exercise requirements. This more than doubles the cumulative hours for forum requirements over past bids. What additional requirements are anticipated to more than double the amount of time devoted to this CLIN, since “forums can take many forms”? What additional exercise requirements or forum execution is anticipated? Please identify the work required, since this is a significant increase to the time needed, and the contract should identify the specifications required.

· Over the last couple of years, we have made changes to the forums in both DE2307 and DE2308. DE2307 now includes two each three week running forums (totaling six weeks) in which students make weekly primary and response posts. DE2308 includes a two week team exercise/ forum at the start of the course and a 10 day defense management exercise to finish the course, which like with the exercises in DE2309 & DE2310, requires a lot of FI involvement. Therefore, we made adjustments to instructor forum time to account for these changes, as well as, trying to ensure that time identified was a more accurate reflection of instructor time involved.

8. Paragraph 6.8.3 – States online elective evaluations are conducted according to paragraphs 6.1 through 6.3, but should that read paragraphs 6.2 to 6.4?

· The numbers have been corrected.

9. Paragraph 6.8.5, Number of CLINS – Was the unnumbered paragraph following paragraph 6.8.5 and before 6.8.6 supposed to have a paragraph number like other paragraphs in the RFQ? It seems that it should be renumbered as paragraph 6.9 which means all subsequent subparagraphs need to be renumbered as 6.9.X, and following paragraphs incremented by one. 10. Paragraph 6.9, Meetings – If two meetings are scheduled one after the other, but cover different events (such as the AAR from one course followed by a briefing on evaluations for the next course) will those be treated and invoiced as two separate meeting events?

· Those lines have been deleted.

11. Paragraphs 6.9, Meetings and 6.10, Training – How much prior notice will DDE give for meeting attendance? What is the minimum notification time for the conduct of a meeting? Will DDE schedule alternate meeting or training times in case of scheduling conflicts? Will events be recorded for later review if needed?

· In SYS, we publish a yearly meeting calendar that attempts to capture required meetings in advance. We try to work information/ trying into these times and do record sessions so those with a valid excuse who are unable to attend and go back and review. There may be instances where an unforeseen event arises but we will do every effort to ensure that notice is given more than a week out.

12. Paragraph 6.11, Guide for Battlefield Staff Rides – Since battlefield staff rides are marked as “optional – quote not required,” does that mean that paragraphs 6.11.5 to 6.11.11 are optional as well? Should paragraphs 6.11.5 to 6.11.11 be grouped together separately as mandatory training, and not part of the 6.11 paragraph covering Battlefield Staff Rides?

· All training items moved to separate section.

13. Current paragraphs 6.11.5 to 6.11.11, Mandatory Training. Is there a single directory by which all mandatory training events may be accessed, like a page on Blackboard, or somewhere on Teams? If so, where will it be?

· There is not a single location for all training.

14. Will the Controlled Unclassified Information Training that was mandated for completion in March 2021, be a new annual requirement for paragraph 6.11.9, or was that a one-time training event added to the cyber-awareness training?

· This is supposed to be added to the annual training, timeline unknown. MICC personnel were required to complete for FY22, contractor status unknown.

15. Page 26, Item No. 0005 – This CLIN states it is a “PLACE HOLDER CLIN” as Advanced Studies is not held during the base year. The same situation applies to CLIN 0004, Second Resident Course as it is not offered during the base year either. However, it does not include the “DO NOTE QUOTE” caveat. Which is correct?

· In case the incumbent is not selected to fulfill this requirement, the Government reserves the right to ask the contractor to participate in SRC.

16. Page 52 CLIN 0003 – Since the period of performance start date is 1 June 2022, will the winning instructor be assigned a First Resident Course seminar to teach in 2022?

· Yes.

17. Does the Core Written CLIN include Student-Peer Reviews of other student written work as part of the contract? If so, what is expected of FIs in administering this new sub-task, how much time has SYS estimated it will take to accomplish these tasks per course, and which courses will have Student-Peer Reviews?

· SYS, as part of our effort to meet formative assessment requirements, is making peer reviews mandatory for essays/point papers. This past year students were directed to provide mandatory peer reviews for DE2307, DE2309, and DE2310 essays. As of right now this is strictly a student peer review with no CLINS to account for instructors providing feedback on these outlines. Although many of the full-time faculty and DIMAs use these to provide students with rudder steers/feedback on the paper projects, this is not accounted for in the contracts as written and would be purely at the discretion of the contractor, without billed hours associated.

18. Formative Assessments – Does SYS anticipate implementing formative assessments in its evaluations as First Year Studies started last year? If so, what is expected of FIs in administering this new sub-task, how much time has SYS estimated it will take to accomplish these tasks per course, and which courses will have Formative Assessments?

· See 17.

19. If contracting issues a new PWS for this solicitation, could you please issue it with track changes clearly marked in the updated PWS to make it easier to see what was changed in context of the document?

· Done.

20. The Unit for most CLINS changed since last year’s bid from Each to either Job or Session. What are the definitions of these terms and how do these differences affect invoicing?

· It has been ruled that the unit of issue of Each is to be used for supply only, and continued use has been creating severe issues in the finance & contracting systems. There is no change otherwise.

21. CLIN x010, Battlefield Staff Ride – The quantity and unit changes between the base year and subsequent option years. The base year specifies 1 staff ride with the unit as a Job. For each of the option years, the quantity is 3 Sessions. Which is correct?

· “Job” and “Sessions” are used interchangeably and mean the same thing, which a qualified contractor can be asked to serve as a battlefield staff ride guide for up to three staff rides in an option year. We stipulate 1 for the base year since we want to allow time for FI to become qualified for the event.

22. Many of the PWS paragraph references used in the CLIN section of the RFP are incorrect. For instance, CLIN 0002 “Online Forum IAW PWS 6.3”, when it should reference “PWS 6.4.”

· The PWS was in error. You will find that the attached amend 1 PWS to match.

Cybersecurity Questions

1. Is NIST 800-171 and DFARS clauses 252.204-7012, 252.204-7019, 252.204-7020 compliance required for this contract?

a. Short Answer: Due to the mandate at DFARS 204.7304, our system will error if those clauses & provisions are not included. There is nothing applicable in them that apply to this requirement.

b. Long Answer:

· IAW DFARS 204.7300, the items in the above listed clauses are only for “covered defense information that resides in or transits through covered contractor information systems”.

· Definitions, as listed in DFARS 204.7301 -

· “Covered contractor information system” means an unclassified information system that is owned, or operated by or for, a contractor and that processes, stores, or transmits covered defense information.

· “Covered defense information” means unclassified controlled technical information or other information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls pursuant to and consistent with law, regulations, and Governmentwide policies, and is—

(1) Marked or otherwise identified in the contract…

· NO information has been marked or otherwise identified.

2. Are Huawei and other named products the only ones covered in 252.204-7012 and its related DFARS clauses? Or, do these clauses also cover other systems like any personal computers and connections to USAWC network?

· DFARS 252.204-2016 and 252.204-2017 (as well as FAR 52.204-24, 52.204-25, & 52.204-26) are the only clauses/provisions that discuss Huawei.

· For the rest, see question 1.

3. What CUI-type information will contract FIs be responsible for protecting?

· See Question 1.

4. Does the USAWC expect contract FIs to generate CUI information and if so, what?

· See Question 1.

5. To what extent will USAWC exercise its right under DFARS 252.204-7020 to check on the awardees self-reported assessment score?

· See Question 1.

6. If 252.204-7012 is required, when does USAWC expect its awardee to be in full compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012?

· See Question 1.