DDE 2nd Yr. Inst. - Questions to Solicitation_Amend 3.docx

1. Is this contract a small-business set aside?

· Yes

2. Paragraph 1.9, Post Award Conference – May these meetings be attended virtually?

· Yes

3. Paragraph 1.23, Required Training – Is DoD Cyber Awareness Training no longer required?

· See PWS 1.23.4.2

4. Paragraph 1.23.4.1,

a. Information Assurance – What does this training entail besides registering in ATCTS? Anti-terrorism Level 1 (1.23.1) and OPSEC (1.23.3) training have webbased training associated with each. Is there an equivalent website for IA training?

· Information Assurance is the old Cyber Awareness.

b. Where does an FI register for ATCTS?

· Registration information will be given at award

5. Paragraph 3.5, Materials – Is the government no longer issuing identification badges for building access, as it does for CACs for LAN access?

· Identification badges fall under PWS 1.8.2

6. Paragraph 4.2, Equipment – Where does an FI find the list and location to “install the necessary root certificates and or other software as defined or mandated ...”?

· That information usually comes with the CAC reader.

7. Paragraph 5.2.2.3, page 21 of 91 – What is Peerceptive? Will it and training be provided by the government?

· Peerceptive is a peer review platform that allows students to upload outlines/drafts for their seminar/classmates to review. Up to three student reviewers provide both written and number ratings based upon a course director rubric (built into the program). Since a certain percentage (up to 10%) of the student’s overall essay grade is counted toward input/feedback in Peerceptive, faculty instructors must go in and review student effort (both in product submissions and feedback). This also allows FI’s to determine if students are off course in the direction of their essays and reach out for correction as necessary.

· Course Directors provide an overview of Peerceptive layout and expectation during the relevant Faculty Instructor Guidance (FIG) sessions and can go over/answer any questions during that time on Peerceptive. During the first FIG where Peerceptive is used (DE2307), the CD should go over Peerceptive to satisfy utilization. With this familiarization, faculty are expected to also familiarize themselves as needed.

8. Paragraph 5.2.3.1, Forums – This states, “However, the aggregation of all core course forums and exercise requirements should not exceed 260 cumulative hours.” After Amendment 2, should this be 130 hours for a single team bid?

· This PWS is written that the work IS for a single team, regardless if there are 1 or 2 key people on the Contract. There are a total of 4 forums on each Option Year. Each Forum would require 65 hours X 4 = 260 Hours total.

9. Exhibit B, Deliverable 1 – This deliverable states a requirement to submit something by encrypted email. How is the contractor supposed to obtain a CAC to send an encrypted email within five days of contract award?

· A CAC is not required to encrypt email.

10. Attachment 1, page 34 of 91 (and Amendment 2) – The change reflected in Amendment 2 is confusing. Was the last line, “Any offer with less than two (2) individuals will NOT be accepted” supposed to be deleted? Or, is the government requiring that a 2-person team be assigned to each pair of seminars?

· Yes, change will be made.

11. Attachment 1 and Quote Template, page 36 of 91 – The documents reflect quantities that appear to be double of what is required. For example, CLIN x003 shows a quantity of 2, but there is only 1 FRC per year. Similarly, CLIN x008 shows a quantity of 24, but paragraph 5.2.9 specifies up to 12 meetings per year. The quantities shown for all CLINs are similarly confusing. Please explain the purpose and expectation reflected by these numbers.

· CLINs are currently set for two (2), but will be changed if two (2) contracts are awarded.

12. Page 36 of 91 – The unit of for each CLIN has changed from Each in previous contracts to Sessions. What are the implications that bidders need to know in the difference between the two?

· This change was implemented in FY22. It was determined that an “Each” is a supply; “Sessions” is the most suitable sub that was approved for services.

13. Are Huawei and other named products the only ones covered in 252.204-7012, -7017, and -7018 and its related DFAR clauses? Or do these clauses also cover other systems like any personal computers and connections to Carlisle Barracks network?

· This change was implemented in FY22. Due to the mandate at DFARS 204.7304, our system will error if those clauses and provisions are not included. There is nothing applicable in them that apply to this requirement.

14. Since 252.204-7012 will be incorporated into this contract, when does DDE expect its awardee to be in full compliance with DFAR 252.204-7012?

· See question 13.

15. Could all future amendments continue to incorporate the use of Track Changes so that changes might be easier to discern?

· That is standard operating procedure.

16. In Factor 1, Subfactor 3, Experience, would instruction by a PhD who has taught at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College for six years satisfy the requirement for “or an accredited graduate degree granting institution teaching graduate level courses"? Obviously CGSC is not a senior service college, but it is an accredited graduate degree granting institution.

· The academic rank of the instructor does not matter in experience except from the perspective that said individual must be of the rank equivalent or higher to the level being taught. CGSC is accredited through TRADOC and considered graduate level education. However, it will not be considered equivalent to teaching at a SSC level that focuses on the same type curriculum to be taught.