QnA_0001.pdf

140A1624R0001 Information Technology Support Services IDIQ Questions and Answers

Note: Most duplicate questions have been removed or combined into one Question/Answer. If there is a perceived discrepancy in any of the answers provided, please notify the Contracting Officer immediately for clarification.

Q1: How do we gain access to the datasets referred to in the RFI? "Exercise 1: Office of

Information Management Technology, Branch of Geospatial Support has loaded numerous datasets into map viewers, use this information to highlight a need, showcase a success, or tell a story. (Resource: https://onemapbia-geospatial.hub.arcgis.com/pages/applications)."

A1: RFP updated. Additional link added to solicitation for direct access to resources:

https://biamaps.geoplatform.gov/BIA-Opendata/Data

Q2: …request that you consider an amendment to Solicitation No. 140A1624R0001 to remove the requirement that "at least one past performance project must have the offeror serving as the prime contractor." My company's personnel have significant expertise in several of the support areas contained in the SOW, but as a company looking to get into the federal space, we do not have past performance. For this reason, we sought out a partner with exceptional past performance to work together to improve the services offered to the BIA. I understand there is somewhat of an exception contained on page 84 of the solicitation, "If the offeror has no relevant past performance experience in which they acted as the prime Contractor, the offeror must submit a statement stating this and the offeror will be given a neutral rating for past performance." Will you please amend Solicitation No. 140A1624R0001 to remove the requirement that "at least one past performance project must have the offeror serving as the prime contractor?"

A2: The identified language will remain unchanged.

Q3: We noted that the LCAT requirements within the solicitation do not match the Government requirements, as just one example follow:

Example: The government is asking for modernization.

LCAT Deficiency: There are no cloud personnel/experts listed within the LCATs table provided by the government.

There are no cloud advance specialists, such as IA personnel listed within the LCAT table provided by the government.

In addition, there more relevant or better examples of need to support modernization, such as SCRUM Masters’ in support the advanced frameworks needed to support cost effective and efficient modernization efforts. In addition, there are aspect of systems and life cycle engineering currently not present within the LCATs.

Recommendation(s): The Government may want to consider allowing Contractors to https://biamaps.geoplatform.gov/BIA-Opendata/Data add and/or propose additional LCATs by category. First, this recommendation ensures that proposal responses meet government requirements. Second, this recommendation provides wider pool of Modernization expertise/experts for selection, i.e. a more comprehensive solution that meets the government’s requirements.

A3: RFP Attachments 2 and 3 updated.

Q4: The table on page 80 states under the Page Limit column that there is “2 pages per past performance.” The past performance instructions on page 84 under Section F, Factor 3 states that “Each past performance record shall not exceed 1 page and each past performance record shall be on its own page.” Please clarify if each past performance contract write-up is limited to one or two pages.

A4: Two pages max. The RFP has been amended to clarify.

Q5: The table on page 78 states that there is just a 500-word limit for each of the two exercises. The requirements for the two exercises are:

Exercise 1 is to “highlight a need, showcase a success, or tell a story.”

Exercise 2 is to “establish a plan to support and improve the next measurements.”

The requirements in Section L and M do not specifically call out the two exercises. They state that we need to present the following: a) Tell a story that will enable more effective, data-driven decision-making; b) Write a brief narrative to accompany and explain the approach taken in building the interactive dashboard. Narrative should “tell a story” around the key insights from the data, the choices(s) of the data, design and/or functionality choices for the data visualization execution of the dashboard, and how this will help enable effective, data-driven decision-making.

The requirements in Sections L and M do not seem to specifically align with the descriptions of the two exercises. We want to ensure that we meet the requirements of Sections L and M but need to understand how to fit the responses within the two exercise responses. Can you help clarify?

Additionally, we wanted to confirm that the only narratives allowed are the two 500-work responses to the exercises and that there is not an expected response at the high-level Factor 1 level. The second Section L and M requirements tend to be asking for a general “story” around the building and creation of the dashboard at the high level.

A5: 500-page limit is on the narrative for exercise 1 and 500-page limit on exercise 2.

Screenshot(s) or web-based URL shall also be provided (not included in page limit). No high-level response is needed. Only the narratives and accompanying screenshot(s) or web-based URL. RFP Section L.1.F. along with the table in Section L.1.D. contain the instructions needed. RFP Pages and Sections: NPS IR Performance Work Statement, Anticipated Workloads: Page 27 (for 5.2.02); Page 29 (for 5.2.03); Page 30 (for 5.2.04)

Q6: Is it possible to provide these workload positions mapped to the contract LCATs?

A6: Only key personnel have been mapped to their specific section of the IR IT PWS.

It is expected that offerors will propose a labor mix of key and non-key personnel that is tied to its unique technical approach under Factor 4 (i.e. we want to see what positions an offeror proposes for a specific task or tasks).

Q7: Is it the intent that the Key Person for Information Security Specialist – Senior, listed on page 85 of the RFP and page 9 of the PWS, fill the Information Assurance Engineer Specialist FTE provided in the Section 5.2.02 Anticipated Workload?

A7: See response to Q6.

Q8: It is our understanding that we are to provide a pricing response for the IR IT Task Order.

Page 88 states that price quotes shall be submitted in a separate file using the provided Excel spreadsheet. The only Excel spreadsheet provided is Attachment 2 which has just one tab for the contract LCAT rates.

Is it appropriate to add a tab to the workbook to provide the TO pricing or should be provide in a separate file?

A8: Two pricing files. One for IDIQ rates/ceilings and separate one for TO response.

Q9: B08_Solicitation_Attachment_1_IDIQ_SOW OIMT Desktop User Support - SOO 4.6.2 and

4.6.3 IT Contractor Work at Bureau Operated School (BOS) (SOO 4.6.2) and Emergency (SOO 4.6.3) both are labeled as "Task Area 2" of OIMT Desktop User Support. Can the government correct the numbering and confirm that another major heading isn't missing?

A9: RFP has been corrected.

Q10: Page 78, b. Technical and Pricing Volumes Will the government allow a 1-2 page cover letter to introduce the team as a part of the Stage 1 technical volume and can it not be counted against the page count?

A10: A one-page cover sheet is allowable and does not count against the total page count.

Q11: Page 84, Factor 4: National Parks Service (NPS) Information Resources IT Support Task Technical Response Can the government confirm the number of Key Personnel resumes required per the following categories needed for the IR Task Order execution to be included in Factor 4? - Task Order: Contracts Manager - Task 5.2.01: Help Desk Support Service Specialist-Senior - Task 5.2.02: System Administration – Senior - Task 5.2.02:

Information Security Specialist – Senior - Task 5.2.03: Systems Engineer – Senior

A11: The government is not asking for a certain number of resumes. The government is asking for Key Personnel, one being the Contract manager and the others being the key personnel for specific task areas. The Contractor can submit the resume to identify that their chosen person is qualified to serve as the Key personnel. However, the government does not identify nor specify who should serve as Key Personnel. Resumes will only be treated as evidence of the persons senior skills or qualities to serve as key personnel.

Q12: Page 88, Stage II, Factor 7 IR IT Task Order Price Response Can the government provide more information of the IR IT Task Order Price Response instructions to offerors and/or a desired template? Is there a narrative needed?

A12: Stage II questions should be submitted at a later date specified in the RFP.

Q13: B08_Solicitation_Attachment_6_NPS_IR_PWS Page 9, 1.6.11. KEY PERSONNEL This states the need to provide a Contract Manager and an Alternate Contract Manager. Can the government clarify if these are one or two FTE roles?

A13: One role, however the Contractor should have someone that can serve as a backup if required. (Meaning, key personnel from one of the specific task areas)

Q14: B08_Solicitation_Attachment_6_NPS_IR_PWS Page 9, 1.6.11. KEY PERSONNEL Can the government clarify if the Contract Managers referenced on page 9 are the same or different roles anticipated for page 30/31 - Section 5.2.05 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES - 2 FTE Project Managers

A14: Different roles. Contract Manager will only deal with the contract management of the task order, interface with the COR and CO. The Project Management Services will support the various task associated with delivery of projects and/or programs.

Q15: Will BIA extend the due date to two weeks after answers to questions are released to give Offerors adequate time to incorporate changes into their responses?

A15: Stage I due date updated in RFP.

Q16: The SF 33, Section 9 states "Sealed offers in original and 1 copies." Please confirm that a hard copy submission is not required and submission by email is acceptable.

A16: Confirmed. Hard copies will not be accepted.

Q17: Does BIA want the SF 33 filled out and submitted with Stage I?

A17: No.

Q18: Do Offerors need to submit ISBEE documentation in addition to completing clause DIAR 1452.280-4 Indian Economic Enterprise Representation (FEB 2021)?

A18: The only representations and/or certifications required are in the RFP.

Q19: Solicitation, Section L, J. Proposal Submission Details "As stated in FAR 52.212- 1(f)(2)(i)(A), if the proposal is emailed, then the proposal must be received at the initial point of entry to the Government Infrastructure not later than 5:00pm (local time) one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of offers."

Please clarify if proposals submitted by email need to be submitted by 5 pm EST, March 13, 2024?

A19: No and the RFP has been updated.

Q20: Solicitation, Section L, Section K Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors or Respondents Does BIA want Section K Reps and Certs filled out and submitted with Stage I?

A20: All proposal instructions must be followed and adhered to for Stage I submissions.

Q21: Are Offeror's required to submit two to six past performance of projects (versus past performance records)?

A21: We are not asking offerors to submit CPARS records. We are requesting information on relevant and recent past performance (see pages 82-83, Stage I instructions of the RFP).

Q22: Section L states "At least one past performance project must be for a federal agency IT services contract." Do all other past performance project need to be performed for a federal agency or is non-federal experience acceptable?

A22: The RFP allows for non-federal past performance.

Q23: Are past performance records submitted for the Prime offeror only or also for teaming partners/subs?

A23: RFP provides all the details about past performance submission.

Q24: Do past performance records need to be the same contracts submitted for the past performance projects?

A24: No.

Q25: Section L states "The Government reserves the right to consider past performance report forms received after the due date of the RFP and to contact references for verification or additional information." Please clarify if past performance records are to be submitted by the Offeror in Stage I or if the client submits the record directly to the

BIA?

A25: The RFP has been updated. Past performance is to be submitted by the offeror as part of its stage I submission.

Q26: There are two SOWs attached, one is “ITSS Statement of Work 140A1624R0001” and the other “Information Resources Directorate NPS-WASO IR IT Support Services”: Are these being combined into one solicitation, or will they be separated?

A26: The instructions of the RFP are clear.

Q27: ITSS SOW gives labor categories for staffing IT personnel, while Stage One, Factors 1 and 2 are requesting IT exercises to be completed. Meanwhile, “Information Resources Directorate NPS-WASO IR IT Support Services” is requesting IT personnel.

What services are being requested? IT Staffing or programming/IT services?

A27: Many different areas of Information Technology Support Services are being requested, and thus many different areas of information technology support services are being evaluated.

Q28: Who is the current contract holder? What is the current awarded contract number?

A28: ITSS consolidates multiple ongoing requirements under the anticipated IDIQs.

The following are the incumbents and contract numbers associated with the major existing work that will transition to ITSS, once ready:

Contract Contractor POP End 140A1619F0053 Native Hawaiian Veterans 9/20/2024 140A1619F0052 Goldbelt Hawk 9/10/2024 140A1621C0002 CyberStar 6/10/2026

140A1620C0008 TUVLI 8/20/2025

140A1619P0799 TIKRAS 9/30/2024

140P2124F0016 CNMC, LLC 9/11/2024

Q29: Will the government consider extending the Past Performance recency requirement to five years? (Factor 3: Past Performance, page 83)

A29: No.

Q30: Technical and Pricing Volumes L.D.b. Factor 2 79, 82 Additional information is required in order to respond to Factor 2, Exercise 1: Please provide a current depiction of the network as is.

A30: Offeror may document assumptions

Q31: Technical and Pricing Volumes L.D.b. Factor 2 79, 82 Additional information is required in order to respond to Factor 2, Exercise 1: Please provide a listing of the network equipment at the location, including the type and number of devices.

A31: Offeror may document assumptions

Q32: Technical and Pricing Volumes L.D.b. Factor 2 79, 82 Additional information is required in order to respond to Factor 2, Exercise 1: Please specify the broadband service bandwidth on-site.

A32: Offeror may document assumptions

Q33: Technical and Pricing Volumes L.D.b. Factor 2 79, 82 Additional information is required in order to respond to Factor 2, Exercise 1: Please confirm that the modernization task includes the entire school facility (rather than just the lab area).

A33: Offeror may document assumptions

Q34: Many companies are structured with multiple divisions or multiple legal entities that individually perform Prime Contracts but fall under a broader corporate umbrella.

Recognizing such corporate structures exist across the industry, the procurement rules and numerous GAO decisions have made clear that procuring agencies may evaluate and credit an offeror with the past performance and corporate experience of sister subsidiary companies where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the sister subsidiary (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be meaningfully contributed to contract performance. See GM–Bull track, B- 414591.6 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 30, 2018) (holding that an agency may properly attribute the experience or past performance of a sister subsidiary), and Iyabak Construction, LLC, B- 409196 (Comp. Gen. Feb.6, 2014) (holding that the agency failed to articulate a rational basis for solicitation’s refusal to consider experience and past performance of sister subsidiaries).

Would the Government please confirm that the Offeror may cite the prime contract past performance and corporate experience of a sister subsidiary company as prime so long as the Offeror demonstrates how the resources of the sister subsidiary will meaningfully contribute to the performance of the opportunity?

A34: Confirmed, specifically for ANCs. RFP updated.

Q35: Factor 3 – Past Performance p.82-83 There seems to be duplicative information in the RFP regarding the information required by the past performance write up, one with more information than the other. Can you please clarify which paragraph holds the correct information for the offeror to be providing?

A35: RFP Updated. Second section removed as duplicative information.

Q36: Exercise 2 Factor 1 requires the respondent to "create analytical reports that can facilitate process improvement." Please specify which processes the Government would like improved: data collection, data analysis, data management, decision making, resource allocation, etc.

A36: The government is looking for the offeror to demonstrate the ability to perform a scenario where reporting was used to implement some kind of process improvement. An example would be taking a baseline report that highlights deficiencies and using that information to propose a plan or strategy to improve those deficiencies.

Q37: I/Factor 3 Past Performance Solicitation, Offer and Award document 82 L F. Factor 3 Past Performance: The Stage I / Factor 3 instructions ask for past performance of projects of "comparable size, scope, complexity, and technical difficulty..." Since this is an IDIQ with TOs of varying size, what is the Government's benchmark for size (magnitude) for a past performance to be considered comparable?

A37: See response to Q28 for contractor/contract information.

Q38: I/Factor 3 Past Performance Solicitation, Offer and Award document 92 M D. Factor 3 Past Performance Is past performance relevance determined by evaluation of each past performance citation or is past performance relevance determined on a cumulative basis, using the totality of the number of past performance citations provided?

A38: Offeror responses shall reflect sufficient past performance/experience under all task areas called out in the RFP.

Q39: L.1.D.a states, “All required certifications/signed statements must be completed as part of the Stage I response.” · Can the government clarify whether completed representations and certifications should be included or is the expectation to only provide a statement of acknowledgement?

A39: The former.

Q40: Pg 78 L.1.D.b Is it the government’s expectation that offerors will make assumptions based on the information given in the exercises/scenarios and the provided datasets within the link in L.1.b.?

A40: The government will evaluate responses based on the level of confidence it has in the offeror’s ability to execute the work, including any assumptions it makes.

Q41: Pg 76 L.1.C What is the government’s expected target date for advisory notification of down select to Phase II?

A41: We anticipate notifications going out within 2-3 weeks of Stage I submission.

Q42: L.1.H, Sub-Factor B: IDIQ Key Personnel Resumes states, “The offeror shall provide resume(s) for all key personnel listed in Section H.4” and Sub-Factor A: Technical Approach states, “At minimum, the contractor shall provide resumes for the following key personnel at the NPS IR task order level: Contract Manager, Help Desk Support Service Specialist, System Administration, Information Security Specialist, and Systems Engineer.” However, H.4 states, “Key personnel at the IDIQ level consists of the IDIQ Program Manager only.” Can the government clarify how many resumes and for which Labor Categories are required?

A42: Key personnel resumes are required at the IDIQ level (PM) and also as part of the Factor 4 technical response, as that is being evaluated all within the bounds of Factor 4.

Q43: Attachment_2_IDIQ Pricing_Schedule_v2 (Pricing Schedule) B08 Solicitation Attachment 3 Labor Category Descriptions contains System Administrator positions with various levels for both the Data Center Management and Operations Labor Categories with Levels I - IV on Page 16 and the System/Disaster Recovery Labor Categories with Levels I

- VII on Page 29, with each Labor Category Description representing different education and experience requirements. However, it appears the Pricing Schedule provides the Labor Categories of System Administrator I - VII, yet with no distinction of either supporting the Data Center Management and Operations or the Systems/Disaster Recovery Labor Categories. Therefore, can the Government please provide instructions to offerors how to represent the respective pricing for the System Administrator Levels within the two associated areas of the Data Center Management and Operations and the Systems/Disaster Recovery?

A43: RFP Attachment 3 updated. System Administrator I-VII removed from System/Disaster Recovery and updated in Data Center Management section

Q44: The chart on page 81, "II/Factor 7 Pricing Volume" first bullet point, requests pricing for the (NPS) IR IT Task Order. · Will the government please provide/clarify what form this Specific Task Order pricing should be addressed on? Also, please clarify in what volume this Task Order pricing should be placed?

A44: Factor 4 response should be a separate technical and price file.

Q45: II/ Factor 4 IR IT Support Technical Response Due to the page limitations of the Stage 2 Technical Volume, will the Government please confirm that the Phase-in Plan is not included in the 30-page count/limit?

A45: Stage II questions should be submitted at a later date specified in the RFP.

Q46: II/ Factor 4 IR IT Support Technical Response Due to the page limitations of the Stage 2 Technical Volume, will the Government please confirm that the Quality Assurance Plan is not included the in the 30-page count/limit?

A46: Stage II questions should be submitted at a later date specified in the RFP.

Q47: II/ Factor 6 Staffing Plan and Key Personnel Resumes Due to the page limitations of the

Stage 2 Technical Volume, will the Government please confirm that the total compensation plan is not included in the 30-page count/limit?

A47: Stage II questions should be submitted at a later date specified in the RFP.

Q48: II/Factor 7 Pricing Volume TO Pricing Spreadsheet – Will the Government please provide a template/spreadsheet for the IR IT TO pricing being requested?

A48: The government will consider providing a pricing template for Factor 4 pricing response. This will likely be addressed in advance of Stage II.

Q49: Factor 3: Past Performance: Given the page constraints, will the government confirm it is the defining “Functional Areas” in the SOW as Sections 3.1 - 3.7?

A49: Yes (note: Functional Areas name is being changed based on another answer)

Q50: I/ Factor 2, Technical Work Product: IT Modernization In the given scenario it states that 4 testing events were scheduled for the day, but at the end of the scenario description it states that “At least three sessions of the NWEA testing will be unable to take place.”

Does that mean that one testing event did occur?

A50: Yes

Q51: L.1, page 78 The format for the Data Analytics and Visualization technical work product only lists a data visualization screen shot or web-based URL; is it acceptable to provide the narrative for each exercise in PDF format?

A51: Yes, screen shot(s) may be in PDF format.

Q52: Stage I Factor 1, page 78 Regarding output for Exercises 1 & 2: please clarify if the government is looking for a link, or a slide deck? Would it be acceptable to provide a link to our cloud application with username/password?

A52: Stage I Factor 1 Exercise 1 may be Data Visualization Screenshot or web-based URL; Exercise 2 shall be a PDF.

Q53: Page 78, Section L.1D.b, I/Factor 1 The format for Stage I, Factor 1 is “data visualization screenshot or web-based URL” with a 500-word limit for narrative per exercise (excluding dashboards).

Would the government please confirm that the “dashboards” excluded from the word limit are inclusive of the data visualization screenshots and/or web-based URL?

A53: Confirmed.

Q54: Page 78, Section L.1D.b, I/Factor1 Would the government please confirm that offerors may provide multiple data visualization screenshots?

A54: Yes

Q55: Page 78, Section L.1D.b, I/Factor 1, Exercise 2 “Imagine that you are starting from scratch and analyze the data to provide a baseline report. Based on this report, establish a plan to support and improve the next measurements.”

Would the government please confirm that “the next measurements” is in reference to the data sets used in Exercise 1?

A55: Yes

Q56: Page 78, Section L.1D.b, I/Factor 1 In what format should the 500-word accompanying narrative for each exercise be in?

A56: PDF

Q57: Pages 80 & 81, Section L.1D.b, I/Factor 3 & Section L.1.F, Factor 3 Would the government allow offerors to include a brief introductory narrative to introduce past performance, any subcontractor past performance, and showcase project coverage across all functional areas, not to exceed 12 pages for Factor 3 (2 pages per past performance)?

A57: Any brief narrative provided and showcasing project coverage shall be provided within the page limits established (2 pages per past performance).

Q58: Page 82, Section L.1.F, Factor 3 Stage I Factor 3: “For each past performance project cited, the offeror shall clearly document what portion(s) of the project work were performed directly by the offeror or other proposed Teaming Partners/subcontractors, versus what aspect of the work were completed by other contractors not part of the offeror’s proposed team for this solicitation.”

Is an upfront statement that all the work described in each past performance reference is performed by either the offeror or a proposed teaming partner and that no work described was performed by contractors not part of the offeror’s team sufficient to address this requirement?

A58: Any brief narrative provided and showcasing project coverage shall be provided within the page limits established (2 pages per past performance).

Q59: L.1.D Proposal Content Requirements RFP Pg. 77 Can headers and footers be 10-point font?

A59: Yes

Q60: L.1.F, Factor 3: Past Performance, paragraph (1) (a) RFP Pg. 82 Rationale: It has been established that an agency may rely on the performance of an affiliate (including parent or sister companies) where resources and key personnel are anticipated to be relied on during performance. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has determined it to be unduly restrictive of competition for a solicitation to prevent use of affiliate past performance when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates meaningful participation of the affiliate in contract performance.

Would the Government please confirm that it will consider the qualifications, past performance, and experience of affiliates, including parent or sister companies?

A60: RFP updated.

Q61: L.1.D.b Table: Phase I/Factor 1-Factor 3 RFP Pg. 78 For Phase I, does the Government want Factors 1-3 to be submitted in the same volume or separate volumes?

A61: Same volume

Q62: Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents RFP Pg. 73 Would the Government specify whether the Offeror can support multiple teams as both a subcontractor and as the prime offeror on the contract?

A62: Under a single award scenario this would be acceptable, however, this is a multiple award requirement. A contractor may not be a subcontractor under one offeror and a prime under a separate offer.

Q63: Sol_140A1624R0001.pdf 83 Last paragraph on the page We request the Government clarify what “past performance report forms” are referenced in this paragraph? We see no requirements for submitting any additional forms with our proposal or separately.

A63: RFP updated to remove “forms”

Q64: Document Name: B08_Solicitation_Attachment_6_NPS_IR_PWS Page Number: 9 Section: 1.6.11 Attachment 6 identifies four (4) key personnel serving different NPS data centers in different geographic locations across the US. To ensure fair and equal price proposals across Offerors, please confirm key personnel can be remote staff.

A64: Key Personnel cannot be remote staff. Staff is expected to come into the data center in Reston, VA at various times to perform work related to the task area.

Sub-Task 5.2.02.2: On-Prem Infrastructure Support. Key Personnel may be able to telework at times. The Denver Data Center and the Cloud can be accessed remotely. Document Name: Sol_140A1624R0001 Page Number: 77 Section: D.

Proposal Content Requirements Could the Government please confirm the Volume names for Stage I Proposal Submissions? Page 77, Section D. Proposal Content Requirements state three volumes: Business, Technical, and Pricing;

Whereas Pages 78-79, the table indicates there is just a Technical Volume to be submitted.

Q65: Document Name: Sol_140A1624R0001 Page Number: 76 Section: C. Timeline When should Offerors expect Stage II Questions to be answered?

A65: This will be addressed at the time the government releases advisory notices for Stage II.

Q66: Document Name: Sol_140A1624R0001 Page Number: 84 Section: Stage II Factor 4 Sub-factor A: For Stage II Factor 4 Sub-factor A: Technical Approach, could the Government please confirm that the staffing table providing the labor mix covering the NPS IR PWS is not included in the 30-page page count?

A66: Stage II questions should be submitted at a later date specified in the RFP.

Q67: Page 82, Section L.1.F, Factor 2: Technical Work Product: IT Modernization Can the government define the cost factor under this submission? Is the government requesting for a price quotation or our rational on cost considerations for low cost to high cost options?

A67: No pricing information is requested.

Q68: Because Past Performance is limited to one page, can we format it within a table to take advantage of the size 10pt font?

A68: RFP revised to address two pages for Past Performance. 10pt font in Past Performance is not allowed.

Q69: Page 25: Contractor employees are required to sign a copy of a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Can the government provide the draft NDA for our legal team to review?

A69: The non-disclosure agreement that will be required to be signed will be provided after award. The NDA is only related to “Information made available to the Contractor by the Government for the performance or administration”

Q70: Page 22, Section H.4: Can the government confirm whether the key personnel IDIQ Program Manager is, or is not, billable?

A70: The IDIQ Program Manager is non-billable.

Q71: Page 18, Section F.5.A: Can the government make the Section 508 requirement Task Order specific?

A71: All T&Cs in any awarded IDIQ will flow down to specific Task Orders.

Q72: Page 16, Section F.4: Will the government please consider modifying the language around Transition-In Plans. Currently, it reads, “The Contractor shall begin implementation of its Transition-In Plan no later than (NLT) five (5) calendar days after Task Order award.” However, due to scheduling challenges, we find that we cannot actually begin work until after an initial kickoff with the government COR. Will the government modify this to read, “The Contractor shall begin implementation of its

Transition-In Plan no later than (NLT) five (5) calendar days after Task Order award kickoff.”

A72: Yes. The RFP has been updated, though the government anticipates a kickoff to happen very soon after contract award notification.

Q73: Page 16, Section F.2: The government states, “For those TOs issued before the expiration of the IDIQ contract, the period of performance may extend up to twelve months after the expiration of the IDIQ contract.” In our experience, Task Orders would generally extend for the length of the Period of Performance, which could be up to five years in total. Can the government confirm that no task orders will continue beyond one additional year over the IDIQ PoP?

A73: Yes

Q74: Page 78, Factor I: When responding to Factor I, are contractors able to choose a single or few map viewer data sets at our discretion, or are we expected to speak to all data sets at the link?

A74: RFP says “use this information to highlight a need”. This may be one, few, many, or all data sets.

Q75: Will the government please provide a single example from OneMap for contractors to use in order to provide a level playing field? This will allow the government evaluators to assess competence based on similar data.

A75: The government recommends the offerors examine the open data sets and select one or more that resonates with them, note any deficiencies or areas of improvement and using that data create a strategy for improvement. "Provide a Data Visualization Screenshot or web-based URL to show final product."

Q76: Will the government please limit the number of screenshots or the available page-length in the URL to provide an even playing field across vendors? We would prefer to show multiple variations of the dashboard, each tailored to a different stakeholder audience. Another firm might provide just one.

A76: No

Q77: Using the above website link and publicly available data (including source citations), create analytical reports that can facilitate process improvement. Imagine you are starting from scratch and analyze the data to provide a baseline report. Based on this report, establish a plan to support and improve the next measurement." Related to the above question; will the government please add clarity and direction in this prompt in order to receive similar and comparable responses from vendors?

A77: The government recommends the offerors examine the open data sets and select one or more that resonates with them, note any deficiencies or areas of improvement and using that data create a strategy for improvement.

Q78: Sol_140A1624R0001, Pg. 80, L.1-D.b In the table under Factor 7 Pricing Volume, the page limit states “N/A (no page limit on narrative…)” Is a written cost narrative required to be submitted with the Excel file for the Seed Task Order?

A78: The instruction of the RFP are clear.

Q79: Att. 2, IDIQ Pricing Schedule B08_Solicitation_Attachment_2_IDIQ_Pricing_Schedule_v2 Can the Government please add the following positions to the pricing schedule:

“Network Security Engineer-Senior” and “Data Center Analyst-Senior”

A79: Network Security Engineer-Senior and Data Center Analyst-Senior are both already included in pricing schedule.

Q80: NPPS_IR_PWS, Pg. 9 / 46, Par. 1.6.11 “The Contractor shall provide a Contract Manager who shall be responsible for the successful performance of the work.” Can the Government please add the Contract Manager as one of Labor Categories to be priced?

A80: Per RFP page 84, “Contract Manager (ITSS IDIQ LCAT: Project Manager {level TBD by offeror})”

Q81: L.1.D Proposal Content Requirements Does the Government intend each participant to submit the Technical Volume with Factors 1-3 during stage 1 and a second Technical Volume with Factors 4-5 for stage 2? Should the stage 2 Technical Volume include Factors 1-3 as well as 4-6?

A81: Stage I and II Technical Volumes shall be separate.

Q82: L.1.H Key Personnel Resumes Will the Government allow additional resumes for other positions, or are they limited to key personnel only? Does the Government wish to see one resume per listed position? Or can an offer submit multiple resumes per position?

A82: One resume per key personnel position.

Q83: L.1.D.b Stage I/Factor 1 Exercise 1 Could you confirm that the goal of this exercise is to showcase our data analysis capability through any narrative of our choosing rather than through a specific example from the resource site?

A83: Yes

Q84: L.1.D.b Stage 1/Factor 1 Exercise 2 Is the 'facilitate process improvement' aimed at refining data collection and measurement methodologies? Or is the emphasis on improving the analytical analysis process itself, thereby refining the approach to data analysis and reporting for subsequent measurements?

A84: This is more about analyzing the data sets and noting if the data is showing any areas of improvement and then using that data to propose a strategy for improvement.

Q85: Pg 84, Section L, H. Sub-Factor B: Is there a specific time period for the Phase-In, 30, 60, 90 days, or is it up the Offeror to recommend?

A85: RFP is silent. It is up to the offeror to recommend.

Q86: Pg 77, Section L.1, D.a, Business Volume: Please confirm that a Prime Offeror can add teaming partners (subcontractors) to its team after being down-selected for Stage II but prior to Stage II proposal submission.

A86: No. The Team proposed for Stage I cannot be altered for Stage II.

Q87: Sol_140A1624R0001, Section D. Proposal Content Requirements, Page 78 Would the government please allow offerors to provide an additional one (1) page to their Stage I submission for an Executive Summary, in order to introduce themselves and provide an overview of their response, to aid the government in its evaluation?

A87: No. Any “executive summary”-type information should be in Offeror’s Business Volume.

Q88: Sol_140A1624R0001, Section D.b Technical and Pricing Volumes, I/Factor I, page 78.

Would the government please permit offerors to include a one (1) page Introduction to their Stage I, Factor 1 responses in order to describe their method and approach to developing the Technical Work Product to aid the government in its evaluation?

A88: Any information included in Technical or Pricing Volumes shall be within the established page count.

Q89: Sol_140A1624R0001, Section D.b Technical and Pricing Volumes, I/Factor 1, page 78.

Data Visualization screenshots utilized in responding to Stage I, Factor 1 may necessarily include text that is system generated and smaller than 10 points. Would the government please confirm that screenshots may be exempted from the 10-point graphics font size limitation outlined in RFP p77, provided that they are legible?

A89: Just like tables, screenshots are allowed to be 10-point font.

Q90: Sol_140A1624R0001, Section D. Proposal Content Requirements, Factor 2, Pages 79 and 80 Would the government please provide certain baseline information for offerors to anchor their modernization plans against, in order to provide their best responses?

Specifically:

Please identify how internet connectivity is being delivered to the school.

Please describe the systems, technology and network connectivity infrastructure at the school including how connectivity is distributed to the classrooms and computer lab.

Please describe the IT Support organizations, processes and tools in place for the school, including a) identifying who performs network monitoring and management and how it is performed and b) how IT specialists remotely access the school’s network.

Please identify the budgetary constraints offerors should assume in developing their modernization plans.

A90: Offeror may document assumptions

Q91: Sol_140A1624R0001, Section D. Proposal Content Requirements, Page 80 Would the government please provide clarification on how evidence of preferred qualifications should be submitted given its exclusion from the 30-page limit for factors 4, 5, and 6, as outlined in RFP p80, considering there is no specific deliverable labeled 'evidence of preferred qualifications'?

A91: Stage II questions should be submitted at a later date specified in the RFP.

Q92: “Also, at least one past performance project must have the offeror serving as the prime contractor.” L.1 Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 F. Stage I Instructions Factor 3: Past Performance Is it acceptable for the offeror to submit a sister subsidiary past performance to meet this requirement?

A92: RFP has been updated.

Q93: “Following initial screening against the established Go/No-Go criteria, the Government will conduct its Stage I evaluation based upon the following factors (listed with relative importance).” Section M Evaluation Factors for Award M.1 Evaluation D. Stage I Evaluation (Technical) Can the government share the weighting for the Stage I Evaluation Factors from a percentage standpoint since they are not weighted equally?

A93: RFP states “...listed with relative importance...” Also see RFP Section M.1.D.

Q94: RFP Att. 2 Att. 6 RFP: SF 33 Att. 2: ITSS LCAT tab Att. 6: Sec. 1.5 – Period of Performance RFP: 2 Att. 2: NA Att. 6: 4 The RFP and Attachment _2_IDIQ_Pricing_Schedule_v2 show pricing for 10 years. However, Attachment_6_NPS_IR_PWS, states a POP of a 12-month base and 4 12-month option years. Can the government align both solicitations to match?

A94: The NPS IR Task Order will have a separate period of performance from the ITSS

IDIQ.

Q95: RFP Att. 6 Att. 1: 2 – Place of Performance Att. 6: 1.6.5 – Place of Performance Att. 1: 2 Att. 6: 6 Attachment 1 indicates that work will be performed remotely with the possibility of in-person services. Attachment 6 indicates the place of performance includes three government facilities in Washington DC and Northern Virginia. Can the government clarify the requirements for the place of performance?

A95: The work to be performed under this Contract will primarily be performed at three locations, The Main Interior Building (MIB) at 1849 C Street NW, Washington DC. 20240, the NPS’s National Information Technology Center (NITC) facility at 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston Virginia 20192; and the National Information Services Center (NISC) facility at 12795 W. Alameda Parkway, Lakewood, CO 80228. Periodically, work is authorized outside of these locations as specified elsewhere in this Contract. Any work to be performed outside the above designated locations must first be coordinated with the task inspector and approved by the COR. Also, please see Section 5.2.01 – USER SUPPORT HELP DESK for additional location information.

Q96: RFP B.3 8 This section states the government will provide all “equipment, materials, and other items necessary…” However, Section H.15 states that “government furnished property….is to be provided at the individual TO level.” Can the government please confirm that all equipment, materials, and other items needed to complete all contract work will be Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)? If not, can the government indicate what materials the contractor will need to furnish?

A96: All GFE and government furnished information shall be listed and provided for at the TO level.

Q97: RFP H.12 27 Will the organizational conflict of interest requirements be applied on a Task Order by Task Order basis?

A97: Yes, RFP H.12 states “The Contractor shall ensure that all personnel assigned to the contract (and/or subsequent TOs)...”

Q98: RFP I. Contract Clauses – FAR Clauses Incorporated by Full Text 36 The government has designated all Labor Categories as Service Contract Act Exempt using FAR clause 52.222-

53. However, the Department of Labor has specified that labor categories like Desktop Technician and Technical Writer cannot be exempted. Therefore, the Offeror requests the government to revise the Solicitation to remove the exemption clause 52.222-53 and incorporate FAR Clause 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards/Service Contract Act, along with the applicable clauses: 52.222-43 and 52.222-62.

A98: Desktop Technician is considered exempt. Technical Writer has been renamed IT Documentation Specialist to better represent that position. IT Documentation Specialist is considered exempt.

Q99: RFP L.1.D Proposal Content Requirements Font size requirements include a minimum of 10-point font for figures, charts, and tables. Can offerors use a sans-serif font – such as one from the Arial family – to help government reviewers more easily distinguish between narrative and figures/charts/tables?

A99: No

Q100: RFP L.1.H – Stage II Instructions, Factor 4, Sub-Factor A 84-85 The Stage II Instructions, Factor 4, Sub-Factor A: Technical Approach lists one Contract Manager as Key Personnel for the NPS IT Task Order. However, page 9 of 46 in Attachment-6 NPS_IR_PWS, the requirement is that the “…the Contractor shall designate this person (Contract Manager), and an alternate who can act in the absence of the Contract Manager. The Contract Manager and alternate are considered Key Personnel and shall have full authority to act on behalf of the Contractor on all matters relating to daily operations performed under this contract.” Can the government please clarify the key personnel requirements?

A100: Stage II questions should be submitted at a later date specified in the RFP.

Q101: RFP M.1.D 91 Factor 1: Technical Work Product: Data Analytics and Visualization states (in the first bullet) that "The offeror utilized publicly available data, directed/given in Section L.D.b. Factor 1 above, and found additional publicly available supplementary data to execute data visualization and build a dashboard for the two exercises in Section L.D.b. Factor 1 above." The requirements for exercise 1 under Factor 1 only reflect a very small portion of the entire Scope of Work. Would the government consider replacing this requirement with one that is more representative of the complete range of services required in the ITSS scope SOW?

A101: No

Q102: RFP M.1.D 91 In the Stage II Instructions, Factor-4 NPS IR IT Support Technical Response, Sub-Factor A: Technical Approach, the RFP states that “The offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of all tasks described in the NPS IR PWS and clearly explain its technical and management approach of the work to be performed.” This requirement will include technical responses for Sub-Task 5.2.02.3 & Sub-Task 5.2.04 of the NPS IR PWS, which includes many of the same response requirements required for the response to Sub- Factors A, B, & C of Factor-5 Security. Is it the Governments intent to have duplication of the offeror’s written responses to demonstrate an understanding of these tasks in both Factor-5 & NPS IR Task Order?

A102: Stage II questions should be submitted at a later date specified in the RFP.

Q103: Attachment 4 1.D – Cloud 4 This section states that PaaS, SaaS, or other “as a Service” offering must comply with applicable language within the DOI Cloud hosting program guidelines. Can the government provide a line to where offerors can find these guidelines?

A103: The DOI Foundation Cloud Hosting Services (FCHS) Program works continuously to develop cloud hosting plans and processes to offer a credible portfolio of contract vehicles and other cloud-based IT shared services to our customers.

Visit https://www.doi.gov/cloud/portfolio for more information.

Q104: B08_Solicitation_Attachment_6_NPS_IR_PWS Page 83, Section L, F. Stage I Instructions, Factor 3 Per the solicitation 1b "Past Performance references where a proposed Teaming Partner/Subcontractor was a subcontractor on the project referenced are not acceptable and will not be considered." Can the government clarify if subcontract past performance by the Offeror, not by a teaming partner or subcontractor, will be acceptable as long as the Offeror meets the requirement of 10a "a. At least one past performance citation must be with the Offeror serving as the Prime Contractor"?

A104: As long as the prime offeror meets the requirement of 10a, additional references it provides can be as a subcontractor or other teaming partner.

Q105: Solicitation Page 78; Section L.D.b. Technical and Pricing Volume, (Table) Stage I/Factor 1 (Technical Work Product: Data Analytics and Visualization): Can the Government confirm that the requirement to include cited sources is not included in the 500-word limit for the narrative?

A105: No. RFP will be updated

Q106: Solicitation Page 78; Section L.D.b. Technical and Pricing Volume, (Table) Stage I/Factor 1 (Technical Work Product: Data Analytics and Visualization): Can the Government confirm that, for the purposes of Data Visualization Screenshots or web-based URL related to Stage I Factor 1, the offeror is authorized to use a font size smaller than 10-point and a font type other than Times New Roman, as long as the text is legible and is not used to circumvent the established 500-word limit for narrative content per exercise?

A106: No.

Q107: Solicitation Page 79; Section L.D.b. Technical and Pricing Volume, (Table) Stage I/Factor 2 (Technical Work Product: IT Modernization): Can the Government confirm that, as it relates to diagrams, the offeror is authorized to use a font type other than Times New Roman, as long as the text is legible and is not used to circumvent the established 2-page limit under Factor 2?

A107: No.

Q108: L.1 D.b Technical and Pricing Volumes Factor I Data Visualization78 For Factor 1, Exercises 1 and 2. How many URL screenshots and/or dashboards may be submitted?

A108: RFP is silent.

Q109: L.1 D.b Technical and Pricing Volumes 78 Factor I - Exercises 1 and 2. The format for these exercises is Data Visualization Screenshot or web-based URL. The government is https://www.doi.gov/cloud/portfolio not clear how that information should be provided in our proposals. Would the government please provide additional instructions on how this information is to be imparted? Should the screen shots be part of Volume 2 as a PDF file? How large can these Data visualization screenshots be?

A109: Screen shots may be included in a PDF file. Screen shots shall no larger than 8.5” x 11”. Section L.1.J. describes limitations on email sizes.

Q110: Factor 3 past performance 83 The past performance requirement states. “Must be the offeror or a Teaming Partner/Subcontractor on the Offeror’s proposed team for this solicitation,” please confirm that “offeror” can include a tribally owned entity and its sibling companies (Subsidiaries under a parent company.)

A110: RFP has been updated.

Q111: Factor 3 past performance 83 If the government allows sibling company experience to be counted toward Prime experience, should meaningful relationship letters be included in the Volume 1?

A111: Any information included in Past Performance shall be within the established page count.

Q112: Factor 3 Past Performance 82 The RFP states “Examples should highlight performance…