RFP Questions Amendment 7.pdf

RFP No. RFP 15JPSS22R00000040

AFMS AFISS2

Amendment No. 7 No. Page No. Section and

Paragraph # or Attachment

Question/Comment Recommended Change or Supplemental Information Requested

Response

1 76 L.3.3.5 There is no page allocation for this section and there is only one page unaccounted for in the page count of

70. The information required will take up more than one page.

Please provide a page count for this section.

The DD-254 or 2 page plan should be submitted.

These would be attachments to Volume III as indicated in Section L.

2 77 Question 17 This question was not answered in Amendment 4.

Does the government expect offerors to provide CPARs or will the government review CPARs within the CPARS system?

The Government expects to review in CPARS as stated in the RFP. Alternatively, either Past performance questionnaire maybe provided if a past performance contract is not available in

CPARS.

3 C.6.2.c, L.3.3.b, M.2.1.b

Nowhere in the latest RFP (Amendment 4) does it specifically say a resume is required for the Cryptocurrency SME.

Please clarify whether a resume for this position is a requirement.

No resume is required.

4 Cover Page SF 33 The Standard Form Cover Page was not updated with the new due date and time.

Does the Government intend to release an updated SF 33?

Recommend that an updated SF 33 citing the correct due date/time be included.

The SF 33 is updated to provide the RFP submission email address:

PSS.RFPJMD@usdoj.gov

5 Cover Page SF 33 Per sec. 14, the Amendment No and the date of receipt are to be acknowledged and there are only 4 spaces, while we are at Amendment 5.

Will a continuation page be considered so we may acknowledge current or future Amendments?

Recommend that continuation pages be allowed so Offerors may acknowledge amendments past the 4 allocated spaces.

All offerors shall acknowledge all amendments. A continuation page is acceptable.

6 Amendment RFP Page & Q&A

L.3.3.5 Paragraph 1 of the RFP & Question 94 of

In L.3.3.5, the RFP states, "A Top Secret Facility Clearance issued by DSS will be required to fully perform this contract. Offerors must demonstrate an understanding of this requirement and the ability to

Suggest that the Government have the RFP + Amendment 4, Sec. L.3.3.5 requirement referring to only the OFFEROR supersede the

Any Offeror and all first-tier subcontractors provided as part of initial proposals must be able to provide the requested services on day one at the highest level, therefore all must have the required clearance.

Amendment No. 7 Amendment 4 Q&A comply with the clearances issued by DSS. Offerors shall either submit evidence of clearance or a plan (including timelines) for obtaining clearance. Notice is hereby given that the apparent successful Offeror shall have this TOP SECRET facility clearance no later than the time of proposal submission;

otherwise, it will not be eligible for award".

This statement refers only to the OFFEROR, which is very common.

However, in the Q&A, the question is asked, "Does the DOJ require the prime offeror and all subcontractors to have a TS FCL at the time of submission?"

The Government responded with "Yes, for all proposed Prime and subcontractors."

Would the Government consider applying the TS/FCL requirement to only the Offeror and major subcontractors? The requirement for the entire team to have a TS/FCL would seem to be appropriate only at the Task Order level, depending on the requesting agency's needs.

Several of the agencies listed in C.5, AFP Participating Agencies, require only Secret and/or Public Trust clearances for the FTEs involved.

Furthermore, the RFQ states in Section C.6.2 (b), Staffing, Q&A and strike the response to question 94.

Amendment No. 7 "Contractor personnel shall be required to have Top Secret-SCI, Top Secret, Secret, and Public Trust clearances based on order." Finally, in additional guidance provided by the RFQ documents, only 50% of the FTEs currently on the contract or to be provided by the new IDIQ have/are required to have a Top Secret clearance.

Will the Government confirm that the RFP + Amendment 4, Sec.

L.3.3.5 supersedes Question 94?

7 Amendment 4 RFP Page

C.8.1.3 (p) The tasks and services required to be performed in this category shall be performed by Computer Forensics Examiner (CFE)/Computer Forensics Examiner (CFE) We request the Government clarify if this is a duplicate error or if the services in this section are performed by Computer Forensics Examiner (CFE) and one other Labor Category.

Second Labor Category, if applicable

This is a typo. There exists only one CFE labor category.

8 Cover Page SF 33 The Standard Form Cover Page was not updated with the new due date and time.

Does the Government intend to release an updated SF 33?

Recommend that an updated SF 33 citing the correct due date/time be included.

Please see the response to question no. 4.

9 68 L.3 "Volume IV- Past Performance Each volume can include an optional cover page and table of contents that will not be included in the page count. The limit for these optional documents as included by the offeror in each volume shall be 2

Instead of a 2 page limit for each Past Performance reference, can it be extended to least 3 pages?

The reference provided is for the optional cover page and table of contents.

The page limitation for each past performance reference will not be changed.

Amendment No. 7 pages. These optional pages will not be evaluated."

Will the government consider extending the page count for each Past Performance reference?

10 I would like to confirm that your name will be going on the AFISS proposal and not Leo Li. Is that correct?

All RFP responses should be sent to the address listed in the RFP and question 4 above.

11 RFP+Questi ons+Amend ment+6

Questions 1, 6, & 7

Can the Government confirm that they will provide answers to questions 1, 6, & 7 that were blank in Amendment 6?

Answers to questions The Government has provided a response to any questions that should provide additional value in the proposals received. The Government will respond to questions in accordance with the RFP.

12 AFISS+RFP

+15JPSS22

R00000040 +Amendme nt+4 Page

C.8.1.3 (p) “The tasks and services required to be performed in this category shall be performed by Computer Forensics Examiner (CFE)/Computer Forensics Examiner (CFE)”; however, the predominant number of tasks that are listed as requirements in the section pertain to cryptocurrency analysis and related activities. It would seem those would be the responsibilities assigned to the Crypto SMEs (CCE)at the Task Order level, not to CFEs. Would the DOJ clarify the assignment of the various tasks in C.8.1.3?

Clarified assignment The RFP is amended at C.8.1.3.

13 70 & 76 L.3 “Proposal Sections Subject to Specific Page Limitations ” table and L.3.3.5

The L.3 “Proposal Sections Subject to Specific Page Limitations” table requires that the Volume III Technical Proposal is submitted as 1 electronic file and Section L.3.3.5 requires that “Offerors shall complete the applicable blocks of Attachment 4 DD-254…” Will the Government please confirm that the RFP Attachment 4 DD-254 PDF file

Section L lists this as an attachment to Volume III.

Amendment No. 7 that Offerors are required to fill out, shall be inserted into the Volume III file to ensure Offerors meet the requirement to provide only 1 electronic copy of Volume III as required?

14 21 C.8.1.7 (j) Section C.8.1.7 is for Investigative Analytical Support Services. (j) states, “(j) These services should be performed by the Seized Property Investigator (SPI).” Please confirm that this should be performed by SPI and not Investigative Analyst (IA).

Yes

15 20 & 11 C.8.1.3 (p) and C.6.2 (4)

RFP C.8.1.3 states, “(p) The tasks and services required to be performed in this category shall be performed by Computer Forensics Examiner (CFE)/Computer Forensics Examiner (CFE)” and RFP C.6.2 states, “(4) Crypto-Currency SME (CCS). … Performance also requires demonstration and experience of SFI, LA, FA, or CFE assigned to the contract. SME would ideally be an industry recognized expert in Virtual/Crypto-currency including reference in professional journals. ” QUESTION: There appears to be a mismatch between the Cyber Crime Support Services LCAT description and the Corresponding Crypto-Currency SME (CCS) description, will the Government please clarify so that these sections are in sync with each other?

See question 12 above

Amendment No. 7 16 86 M.4 Pricing

Evaluation Will the Government provide the evaluation methodology that will be used to provide a fair labor category pricing comparison when the Offerors submitting proposals have different minimum qualifications for the same labor categories being priced? For example, if an Offeror provides a Labor category with a minimum of 2 years of experience and Bachelor’s Degree, and another provides a minimum of 10 years of experience and a Master’s Degree for the same Labor Category, the Government will be faced with comparing prices for two fundamentally different sets of requirements. How will the Government apply a fair price evaluation to widely varying labor category minimum requirements?

The Government will evaluate offers as stated in the RFP. All offerors must submit any proposal based on the categories listed in Attachment One (1). This includes any alternate proposals.

17 Cover Page SF 33 The Standard Form Cover Page was not updated with the new due date and time.

Does the Government intend to release an updated SF 33?

Recommend that an updated SF 33 citing the correct due date/time be included.

The Government will update the SF 33 as intended with the last amendment to the RFP.

19 Cover Page SF 33 Per sec. 14, the Amendment No and the date of receipt are to be acknowledged and there are only 4 spaces, while we are at Amendment 5.

Will a continuation page be considered so we may acknowledge current or future Amendments?

Recommend that continuation pages be allowed so Offerors may acknowledge amendments past the 4 allocated spaces.

Offerors should use a continuation page.

20 Amendment

L.3.3.5 Paragraph 1

In L.3.3.5, the RFP states, "A Top Secret Facility Clearance issued by

Suggest that the Government have the RFP + Amendment 4, See question 6

Amendment No. 7 RFP Page & Q&A of the RFP & Question 94 of Amendment 4 Q&A

DSS will be required to fully perform this contract. Offerors must demonstrate an understanding of this requirement and the ability to comply with the clearances issued by DSS. Offerors shall either submit evidence of clearance or a plan (including timelines) for obtaining clearance. Notice is hereby given that the apparent successful Offeror shall have this TOP SECRET facility clearance no later than the time of proposal submission;

otherwise, it will not be eligible for award".

This statement refers only to the OFFEROR, which is very common.

However, in the Q&A, the question is asked, "Does the DOJ require the prime offeror and all subcontractors to have a TS FCL at the time of submission?"

The Government responded with "Yes, for all proposed Prime and subcontractors."

Would the Government consider applying the TS/FCL requirement to only the Offeror and major subcontractors? The requirement for the entire team to have a TS/FCL would seem to be appropriate only at the Task Order level, depending on the requesting agency's needs.

Several of the agencies listed in C.5, AFP Participating Agencies, require

Sec. L.3.3.5 requirement referring to only the OFFEROR supersede the Q&A and strike the response to question 94.

Amendment No. 7 only Secret and/or Public Trust clearances for the FTEs involved.

Furthermore, the RFQ states in Section C.6.2 (b), Staffing, "Contractor personnel shall be required to have Top Secret-SCI, Top Secret, Secret, and Public Trust clearances based on order." Finally, in additional guidance provided by the RFQ documents, only 50% of the FTEs currently on the contract or to be provided by the new IDIQ have/are required to have a Top Secret clearance.

Will the Government confirm that the RFP + Amendment 4, Sec.

L.3.3.5 supersedes Question 94?

21 Amendment 4 RFP Page

C.8.1.3 (p) The tasks and services required to be performed in this category shall be performed by Computer Forensics Examiner (CFE)/Computer Forensics Examiner (CFE) We request the Government clarify if this is a duplicate error or if the services in this section are performed by Computer Forensics Examiner (CFE) and one other Labor Category.

Second Labor Category, if applicable

See question 12

22 RFP

Amendment 4, pages 76-

..Certain language in the evaluation section of the RFP in direct conflict with the new SBA regulation, promulgated at 13 CFR 125.11. The rule is effective now and Section 13 CFR 125.11 states in pertinent part, “The agencies shall consider the small business’ past performance for the evaluated contract or order

As a result of the new ruling, DOJ must delete the language stating: “Along with that services performed by the prime offeror as a prime offeror would be considered more relevant than those performed by the prime as a subcontractor. The proposal

The RFP does not restrict the consideration of past performance as a subcontractor or first-tier subcontractor. The solicitation currently allows this and requests a crosswalk so that the offeror can detail relevancy. DOJ does not intend to review small business plans as part of its past performance evaluation. The first sentence provides indication of relevancy and the second provides indication of how to improve relevancy.

Amendment No. 7 similarly to a prime-contract past performance.” (Emphasis added.)

shall clearly detail and crosswalk past performance reference services and RFP services that are provided for the prime as a subcontractor or reference that are provided for the prime’s teaming partner or subcontractor in support of relevancy.