MODIFICATION
99 -- Industry Day Questions & Answers - Industry Day Questions & Answers
- Notice Date
- 6/17/2010
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Pax River, Building 441, 21983 Bundy Road Unit 7, Patuxent River, Maryland, 20670, United States
- ZIP Code
- 20670
- Solicitation Number
- N00421-10-R-1046
- Archive Date
- 4/28/2010
- Point of Contact
- Teresa R Brady, Phone: 3017579784, Melisha Y Proctor, Phone: (301) 757-2610
- E-Mail Address
-
teresa.brady@navy.mil, melisha.proctor@navy.mil
(teresa.brady@navy.mil, melisha.proctor@navy.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Attachment (2) - Syllabus for Flight Test Basics, Test Planning, and Test Reporting. Attachment (1) - Course List. Industry Day Questions & Answers. Naval Aviation Test & Evaluation University (NATEU) INDUSTRY DAY - 21 May 2010 Formal Questions and Responses Solicitation N00421-10-R-1046 Question 1: "Can you please advise as to whether there is an incumbent contractor for this requirement? If so, could you please provide the contractor name and the contract number that was awarded?" Answer: There is not an incumbent contractor, therefore a contractor name and contract number is not applicable. Question 2: "Can you confirm whether this solicitation is still a SDVOSB set-aside, or is it now subject to full and open competition?" Answer: Pending Small Business concurrence, this procurement will not be a small business set aside of any type. This procurement will be a full and open competition. Question 3: "When will the Industry Day brief be posted?" Answer: The NATEU Industry Day brief was posted on 5/21/2010 on the FedBizOpps and NAVAIR websites. Question 4: "When will the Industry Day Questions and Answers be posted?" Answer: The NATEU Industry Day Questions and Answers will be posted on or about 6/08/2010 on the FedBizOpps and NAVAIR websites. Question 5: "Would you consider teaming arrangements?" Answer: Yes Question 6: A. "With so many facets leading you to your desired end state, why limit yourself to a single award contract - why not leverage the benefits of a MAC?" Answer: It is a fundamental part of this contract to have continuity and an overarching strategic level management. It would be difficult to mange without a single line of accountability. We believe it is not in the Government's best interest even for cost purposes. B. "Have you considered leveraging the training policies and processes in place at NETC?" Answer: No, there are numerous DOD policies and instructions that will need to be pursued in multiple venues. C. "Navy ILE is not yet mentioned, is/will any consideration be given?" Answer: Unable to answer, not familiar with NAVY ILE. D. "Have you considered AIM II/CPM's planned evolution as a training management system?" Answer: Not specifically, it would be part of the strategy to come up with right system. Question 7: A. "Has thought been given to a Multiple Award Contract?" Answer: It is a fundamental part of this contract to have continuity and an overarching strategic level management. It would be difficult to mange without a single line of accountability. We believe it is not in the Government's best interest even for cost purposes. B. "What would be your misgivings?" Answer: It is a fundamental part of this contract to have continuity and an overarching strategic level management. It would be difficult to mange without a single line of accountability. We believe it is not in the Government's best interest even for cost purposes. Question 8: "Since there are many technical experts spread over majority of companies in the area, have you considered an omnibus multiple award strategy?" If a single award, you may not be able to get to many folks that particularly could help with the training courses. Answer: It is a fundamental part of this contract to have continuity and an overarching strategic level management. It would be difficult to mange without a single line of accountability. We believe it is not in the Government's best interest even for cost purposes. Question 9: "What does the incumbent contractor currently do with respect to the proposed tasking?" Answer: There is not an incumbent for this requirement. Question 10: A. "Anticipated connection to DAU, PGS, etc?" Answer: Collaboration with other required training venues for more effective instruction. Thus, building a T&E training continuum and partnering for feedback with each other would be ideal. B. "Anticipated partnership with NSN TPS and USAR TPS, etc?" Answer: Yes, along with other vendors (i.e. University of Kansas). C. "Anticipated connection to OPTEV FOR?" Answer: Exchange program. D. "Schoolhouse anticipated to be part of contract cost, outside Government facilities, all three sites?" Answer: No MILCON, it is part of the contract to find training facilities at all sites. E. "Number of courses during first year?" Answer: To be determined. It will depend on finances, strategy, and bandwidth. F. "Number of anticipated student body in first year?" Answer: To be determined. It will depend on finances, strategy, and bandwidth. G. "Industry (OEM & CSS) allowed to attend these courses?" Answer: Yes, that is part of the plan. Question 11: A. "What percentages do you see between education and training? Education being theories, concepts, and ways to think. Training being focused on skills; "how to do." Answer: 50/50 or 60/40. B. "What place do you see for distributed learning/on-line training?" Answer: To be determined. Optimally, to strike a balance between in-class dynamics/dialogue (war stories) vice individual/independent learning. C. "How do you capture the expert knowledge of senior professionals?" Answer: Subject matter experts (SME) panels, actual instructors, and the course development itself. D. "Will developing a program for this be part of the contract?" Answer: Yes. E. "What are your small business goals for this contract?" Answer: To be determined. Question 12: A. "Is the intent for the University to be housed in Government or contractor provided facilities, some combination of both, or even virtual under a centralized program management office?" Answer: Both, if possible. B. "Will this brief and/or the FTE guidebook be made available to industry as a reference during solution/proposal development? Answer: The NATEU Industry Day brief was posted on 5/21/2010 on the FedBizOpps and NAVAIR websites. The FTE guidebook will be a reference document in the solicitation. Question 13: A. "Is NAWC TSD Orlando involved in this solicitation and/or oversight of the effort?" Answer: No. B. "The briefing discussed KAS's that have already been determined for various domain specialties. Have formal training front-end analysis documents been developed (i.e. Instructional Performance Requirements Document, Instructional Media Requirements Document, etc)?" Answer: No, just syllabi and lesson plans. C. "If the answer to the above question is no, is it expected/desired for the contractor to perform a comprehensive training FEA prior to the development of training products?" Answer: Yes, in keeping with gap analysis. Question 14: "If the end result preferred is to have ABET accreditation, is there a University currently providing consultation on class curriculum & proctoring?" Answer: No, that is part of the intended strategy and what is expected from the contractor to determine. Question 15: "To what extent do you intend the contractor to provide instructors for the courses versus leveraging the senior 4.0/5.0 workforce? Answer: That will be driven by supply and demand. Expectation of significant reliance on contractor's instructors. Question 16: A. "Is there a range for the 2011 guaranteed minimum? Out years? Answer: To be determined. The information will be posted in the Request for Proposal (RFP). B. "Is there an anticipated throughput requirement based on number of courses and number of students for 2011 and the out years 2012-2015? Answer: Part of the requirement is for the awardee to determine supply and demand elements and provide a plan. C. "Would you consider a 5-year base with a 5-year option to ensure continuity of service? Answer: No D. "Can you provide a summary of the current courses offered under the NATEU? Answer: See attachment (1) E. "Can you provide a syllabus of "Flight Test Basics," "Test Planning," and "Test Reporting?" Answer: See attachment (2) F. "Would you consider a T&M or CPFF line item in addition to the FFP?" Answer: No G. "Do you require all training to be conducted during the work day?" Answer: Yes H. "Do you envision Government personnel to be included as instructors?" Answer: If their schedule permits, however expectation is significant reliance on contractor instructors. I. "Will the T&E University fall within the Department of the Navy Training and Education Command for oversight and resourcing?" Answer: No J. "Will existing (DAU, DoD, NASA, US Air Force, COMOPTEVFOR, Academia) curricula and training opportunities already in place be considered as viable methods to augment or support the T&E University?" Answer: Yes K. "What is the anticipated total contract value?" Answer: The total anticipated cost will not be identified. Question 17: "Is the full & open source selection planning to use the Seaport-e or other sources such as Fed Biz Ops (FBO) for RFP notification?" Answer: The Government intends to utilize FedBizOpps.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DON/NAVAIR/N00421/N00421-10-R-1046/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Patuxent River, Maryland, 20670, United States
- Zip Code: 20670
- Zip Code: 20670
- Record
- SN02181396-W 20100619/100618000211-de218525e9bf6b504fb6830069e4dc4b (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |