Government Responses to Draft RFP Comments 12Jan23.pdf

Government Response to Industry Questions, Comments, and Recommendations on Draft RFP FA8806-23-R-0001

*Note: Blue text indicates recommended text insertions from Industry responses unless stated otherwise.

1. SOW Page 4, Paragraph 4, Line 1:

Was:

(U) The commercial solution must have a DOD IL-5/6 provisional authorization or similar accreditation bodies of evidence that will enable expedited deployments and accreditation in support of rapidly emerging warfighter requirements.

Recommended revision:

(U) The commercial solution must have a DOD IL-2/4 provisional authorization or similar accreditation … in support of rapidly emerging warfighter requirements.

USG Response:

The Government has a requirement for a DoD IL-5/6 Sensitive Compartmented information, and Special Access Program accreditation or similar accreditation bodies of evidence based on the current operational environments and classification of data that is required to be handled by the Data solution. However, evaluation criteria has been revised to allow offerors to present evidence of an ability to obtain IL-5/6 to receive an acceptable rating for Factor 2.

2. The draft documentation states Commercial capabilities. Would the Government consider existing Government off the Shelf (GOTS) software developed for other agencies/organizations and would the Government explicitly modify the language to account for GOTS, as well?

The Government is not considering a GOTS solution for this acquisition.

3. If a desire to move at the speed of need would the Government consider/prefer Government off the shelf (GOTS) capabilities which might be more credible than a commercial offering especially if these capabilities have or are operated (ing) within classified spaces in direct support of intelligence portfolios and thereby create an even larger value proposition.

4. Would the Government expand on the differences and boundaries between the acquisition called Data as a Service by the Cross Mission Data Branch (LtCol Dan Kimmich) and this Space Systems Command (SSC) Space Domain Awareness & Combat Power (SDACP)/Battle Management Command, Control, & Communications (BMC3) Program Offices Data Software Services (DSS) acquisition

The referenced actions are two separate acquisitions and are not linked in strategy or approach.

5. Would the Government please provide details on how they anticipate awarding task orders? Will all task orders be competed? Will some task orders be available as sole source? Will some task orders be limited to a smaller set of prime contractors? How will the Government determine the smaller set of acceptable bidders?

USG Response:

The Government will award delivery orders in accordance with FAR 16.5. Ordering procedures will be included in the final Request for Proposal. The Government reserves the right to use any strategies available for awarding delivery orders.

6. Would the Government confirm that the datasets that will be included are limited to Space Domain

Awareness (SDA) and Command and Control (C2) data per the 4 areas listed in the SOW at this time

USG Response:

Data sets are not limited to Space Domain Awareness (SDA) and Command and Control (C2) data.

Specific data sets will be determined at the delivery order level.

7. Would the Government confirm and explicitly include in the requirements that the enterprise system must meet all PII and PHI requirements

Government will update Statement of Work to explicitly include the requirement to meet all PII and PHI data security controls. Will be added to Accreditation section.

8. SOW 3.1.1 states synchronize. Would the Government clarify? Does this mean data synchronization across Unclass, SECRET, TS/SCI and SAP? Is there a timeliness component to this requirement? Does this include only moving up in classification level or moving SAP data down and if so, down to which level?

This means data synchronization across Unclass, Secret, TS/SCI and SAP and the requirement is only for moving up classification levels

9. SOW 3.1.1 States Analyze, however, this is a very generalized term. Would the Government clarify what type of analysis and what the requirement is for this SOW item

USG Response:

The Government intended for this wording to be generalized due to the wide range of analysis that may need to be supported.

10. SOW 3.1.1 States visualize large datasets. This is a very generalized statement. Would the

Government clarify the definition of large and qualify what visualize means with any caveats?

The Government anticipates large data sets to range from the hundreds of GBs to at times TBs. The Government intended for this wording to be generalized due to the wide range of visualization that may need to be supported.

11. SOW 2.6.1 includes 2 milestone dates that are extremely challenging with the current USSF processes as we have realized.

- 5 calendar days after award for IATT, and

- 30 days after award for ATO (Completion of step 5 of the RMF process) for all enclaves including SAP is extremely difficult.

Would the Government explicitly include caveats to the timeline based on Government processes for which the contractor has no control?

The Government has removed the dates from the IDIQ Statement of Work. Delivery Orders may have specific timing requirements that will be communicated to the IDIQ vendor pool.

12. In order to do an effective Self OCI determination, would the Government publish the OCI criteria and considerations in advance of the Final RFP release to be able to appropriately work teaming, evaluations and write OCI mitigation or Avoidance Plans, if necessary?

The Government will use non-government advisors for the acquisition and will provide a list of companies within the solicitation. Offerors are responsible for identifying potential Organization Conflicts of Interest and providing a mitigation plan as applicable IAW FAR 9.5.

13. Would the Government consider having the Table of Contents as not counted within Page count and outside of the Executive Summary?

USG Response:

Table of Contents does not count toward page count per Attachment 2 "Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services", para 4.2.

14. For Factor 2 within Section M, would the Government explain why the solution is evaluated against

SOW 3.1.1 and does not include 3.2 (Data Quality) , 3.3 (Data Lineage) and 3.4 (Analytic Tools)?

USG Response:

The Government has determined 3.1.1. to meet the minimum requirement for establishing the IDIQ.

Additional SOW requirements may be evaluated during the Fair Opportunity Proposal Requests process.

15. SOW 3.1.1 states 8 capabilities: ingest, store, synchronize, search, share, transfer, analyze and visualize but the technical explanation in L states five capabilities but only lists 3: Ingest, Store and Share. Would the Government clarify which criteria and what capabilities are to be addressed and what features meet the standard.

USG Response:

Attachment 2, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services, Para 6.2.1.

contains the error identified, the Government only intends to evaluate the three capabilities identified for the IDIQ.

16. SOW 3.1.1 asks for a single platform able to manipulate large datasets. Would the Government add specificity to define what criteria meets the definition of large?

The Government anticipates large data sets to range from the hundreds of GBs to at times TBs.

17. Section L and M do not reference a cost section as a requirement or establish price evaluation criteria. How does the Government plan on addressing pricing in its evaluation?

Price/Cost will NOT be evaluated when establishing the IDIQ. Price/Cost will be evaluated at the Delivery Order level.

18. ATCH 3, 3.6: Will the government use of non-government advisors create potential OCI issues for certain contractors?

USG Response:

The Government will use non-government advisors for the acquisition and will provide a list of companies within the solicitation. Offerors are responsible for identifying potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest and providing a mitigation plan as applicable IAW FAR 9.5.

19. ATCH 2, 1.0: 2nd paragraph: Will the contractor for this DaaS effort have OCI issues bidding on future contracts that involve the utilization of the solution delivered as part of this contract?

USG Response:

Offerors are responsible for identifying potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest IAW FAR 9.5.

OCIs for future efforts will be addressed at the appropriate time for those future efforts.

20. Will the government be holding an Industry Day? If so, what is the anticipated date?

The Government will NOT be holding an Industry Day for this acquisition.

21. What security requirements should the contractor expect for their own facilities?

Security requirements for contractor facilities will be handled at the delivery order level of this IDIQ if applicable.

22. ATCH 2, 2.3.1: How many source systems for each classification level should the contractor expect to connect to?

The Government anticipates source system connections to be in the hundreds per classification level.

23. ATCH 2, 2.5: What are some of the volumetrics for the program? Number of users, number of system administrators, etc.?

The users, number of systems administrators, etc. will vary at the delivery order level. The Government anticipates the system to support Department of the Air Force level initiatives and expects an enterprise commercial solution that can support those efforts.

24. ATCH 2, 3.10.1.1: What is the reference for the 15 minutes?

The 15-minute requirement is driven by operational mission needs.

25. ATCH 2, 6.3: Will the government require and/or provide connectivity to JWICS, SIPRNet, etc.

between Government sites and Contractor site(s)?

This will be handled at the delivery order level.

26. ATCH 3, 4.1: Is there a target percent of workshare for SB participation for this effort? How will the percentage contribute to the overall acceptability of the solution given that only Factor 1 and Factor 2 are scored?

USG Response:

Small Business Participation Plans will be evaluated at the Delivery Order level. Offerors should provide a Small Business Participation Plan as applicable in Volume I of proposals to be reviewed for conformance to the Request for Proposal.

27. ATCH 04, 6.: If the government makes multiple awards, will they designate a prime integrator to ensure that the SOW requirement 3.1.1 (single integrated platform) is met? How will that process work?

The Government does not expect to designate a prime integrator.

28. Draft SOW Page 11, Paragraph 3.10.2: (U) A 24/7 cyber monitoring team that will ensure the secure operation of the platform, investigate anomalous activity and defend against cyber vulnerabilities, subject to the availability of 24/7 onsite contractor network access for each level of classification.

Recommend clause addition to tie requirement fulfillment to its dependency on the Government providing the network access asserted in SOW 6.3.

The Government has determined that the original language adequately defines the requirement.

29. Draft SOW Page 13, Paragraph 6.3: (U) The Government will provide access to the network environment and will also provide sufficient seats with SAP, JWICS, SIPRNet and Unclassified (i.e.

NIPRNet/Internet) access from a government facility.

Recommend the Government clarify in this section if network and seat access will extend to the SAP environment given the assertion in SOW 6.4.3 that “the Government will provision the environment sufficient for the Contractor to meet the requirements of the Agreement.”

The Government has clarified the language in SOW Paragraph 6.3.

30. (U) The Offeror shall provide a detailed technical explanation of how the solution will ensure these five capabilities are satisfied: ingest, store, and share.

Requirement mentions five capabilities sought but only lists three. Please clarify technical volume content requirements as they relate to SOW Section 3.1.1.

Referenced section has been corrected.

31. Recommended checklist item addition: "Does the commercial product store data in open, industry standard formats to ensure the Government can readily export or share its data in open, non-proprietary formats via open APIs? Has the commercial product’s ability to prevent vendor lock-in been validated by the Government to allow the secure export of all data to government and/or third-party platforms and tools?”

The Government has determined this recommendation is not necessary for the commercial questionnaire. The Government's requirement has been adequately captured in the questionnaire and in the Statement of Work.

32. Strikethrough text for FAR 52.227-14 Rights in Data-General

Recommend removal of these clauses as a best practice to encourage participation from commercial product providers for whom these clauses are inapplicable.

The applicability of data rights clauses will be specified within the individual DO depending on what type of work is being required. Relevant data rights clauses are included as prescribed.

33. Strikethrough text for FAR 52.227-19 Commercial Computer Software License

USG Response:

The applicability of data rights clauses will be specified within the individual DO depending on what

34. Strikethrough text for DFARS 252.227-7015 Technical Data-Commercial Items

The applicability of data rights clauses will be specified within the individual DO depending on what

35. Strikethrough text for DFARS 252.227-7027 Deferred Ordering of Technical Data or Computer

Software

The applicability of data rights clauses will be specified within the individual DO depending on what

36. Strikethrough text for FAR 52.227-15 Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted

Computer Software

The applicability of data rights clauses will be specified within the individual DO depending on what

37. Please clarify in the RFP if a separate Attachment 5 questionnaires will be required for submission of multiple commercial offerings.

USG Response:

The Government is seeking a single integrated solution that best meets the requirement and as such only one commercial questionnaire will be evaluated per offeror. If an offeror has determined multiple commercial offerings meet all the requirements as a single integrated solution, identify the additional solutions in the "Brief Comments" column of the questionnaire. The Government will only evaluate the FIRST commercial solution for which the questionnaire has been completed.

38. Recommend including scope for data-in-motion (moving / synchronizing data across multiple DaaS installations in a decentralized architecture)

As numerous SSC data commercial solutions are implemented; data-in-motion commercial solutions will be needed to ensure secure sensor to shooter mission capability connecting the data stores.

The Government accepts the recommended change.

39. Please clarify if the commercial solution license structure needs to be complete at the time of IDIQ submission or at the time of the Task Order submission. If the license structure timeline can be associated with the Task Order, please update the Attachment 5 and eval criteria to reflect this scenario.

USG Response:

A complete commercial solution license structure must be complete for consideration of award of the basic IDIQ.

40. Recommend including scope in the RFP for reuse and integration of Government Enterprise Analytic Services.

41. Attachment 5 is defining the FAR commercial product. Recommend updating the eval criteria for minor modification to meet government requirements of clarifying what 'modern modification' definition includes and what is the acceptance definition of commercial product.

Acceptable offers must align to FAR 2.101 definition of commercial product per the Atch 4 criteria reference to Atch5 Questionnaire. The evaluation criteria in Atch 4 is not clear how commercial products that align to FAR

2.101 commercial product definition 2 (evolved product that is not yet available as a commercial product) or definition 3 (minor modification to meet Government requirements) will be assessed. Recommend clarifying evaluation criteria for the definition 2 and 3 of Commercial product FAR 2.101

USG Response:

Per Attachment 4 - Commercial Questionnaire, the Government will evaluate submissions that "Complies with FAR 2.101 commercial product definition".

42. Could the Government clarify if this is the intent, as the IL level and ATO are lengthy processes that would not be able to be completed in the timeframes listed if they were not already approved in these environments and for these uses prior to contract award.

"Draft RFP, Scope, pg. 4: The commercial solution must have a DOD IL-5/6 provisional authorization or similar accreditation bodies of evidence that will enable expedited deployments and accreditation in support of rapidly emerging warfighter requirements.

Draft RFP, Section 2.6.1.1, pg. 6: IATT Documentation (A005): The Contractor shall provide IATT Documentation. The submission of the IATT Documentation shall be provided 5 calendar days after contract award.

Draft RFP, Section 2.6.1.2, pg. 6: ATO Documentation (A006): The Contractor shall provide ATO Documentation. The submission of the ATO Documentation shall be provided 30 calendar days after contract award."

USG Response:

The Government has removed the dates from the IDIQ Statement of Work. The Government has a requirement for a DoD IL-5/6 Sensitive Compartmented information, and Special Access Program accreditation or similar accreditation bodies of evidence based on the current operational environments and classification of data that is required to be handled by the Data solution.

However, evaluation criteria has been revised to allow offerors to present evidence of an ability to obtain IL-5/6 to receive an acceptable rating for Factor 2. Delivery Orders may have specific timing requirements that will be communicated in the Delivery Order Statement of Work.

43. One of the notices the Government stated: "All official RFP documents will be transmitted to interested eligible sources." It is not clear the exact definition of "interested eligible."

All Request for Proposal documents will be transmitted via SAM.gov posting. Offerors are encouraged to respond to that final Request for Proposal when it posts. The draft Request for Proposal included the model contract, and other draft documents. Recommend viewing Notice ID# 23-1 on SAM.gov.

44. Attachment 04 Section M, Page 6, Section 4.1.1: Within the paragraph, the Government makes a reference to the "table below." There is no table from that reference through the end of the document.

Offerors cannot assume how the Government will evaluate any portion the proposal.

Corrected to reference the applicable table.

45. Attachment 04 Section M, Page 4, Section 2.1.5: The Government mentions a "Master" IDIQ Statement of work. Does this imply there are subordinate Statements of Work? Also, the title of the SOW itself does not include the work "Master."

This is simply the need for clarifying how the program is structured and the scope of individual awards.

The statement of work attached to the draft Request for Proposal document is the Statement of Work for the basic IDIQ contract. Delivery orders will contain specific Statements of Work within scope of the IDIQ Statement of Work.

46. Attachment 03 Section L, Page 10, Paragraph 6.2.1: The Government asks for detailed explanation for "these" five capabilities, but only lists three: ingest, store, and share. Additionally, the SOW paragraph 3.1.1 lists at least eight capabilities. Please clarify for which capabilities the Government needs explanation.

The number of capabilities referenced is inconsistent.

Section 3.1.1. has been corrected to "three."

47. Attachment 03 Section L, Page 8, Paragraph 5.1.4.1: Small Business Participation Submission is required from all offerors, even if a small business concern itself, and the submission is not the same as Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Please confirm that per FAR 52.219-9 a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is NOT required for small business concerns.

Simply confirming the guidance within the FAR.

USG Response:

In accordance with FAR 19.702(b)(1), subcontracting plans are not required from small business concerns.

48. Attachment 03 Section L, Page 8, Paragraph 5.1.4.2.1: Please explain "…when subcontracting possibilities exist" Similar phrasing is used in 5.1.4.2.3.

Considering this is a FAR Part 12 commercial item acquisition and without the Government establishing specific small business goals, it is not clear how an offeror determines if "subcontracting opportunities exist."

USG Response:

Offerors should provide a subcontracting plan based on the Request for Proposal requirements.

Delivery Orders will be more specific with regards to "subcontracting opportunities exist" and may include subcontracting as an evaluation factor.

49. Attachment 03 Section L, Page 10, Paragraph 7.1.4: Please explain the phrase "The offeror shall provide an SBPCD IAW this solicitation."

There is guidance for the small business participation submission for Vol. I, but the requirements are not clear for an SBPCD attachment that is incorporated into the contract. In other words, it is not clear what is required in the document.

The Government will not evaluate the Small Business Participation Plan as an individual factor at the IDIQ level. Small Business Participation Plans will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer as part of the determination that the proposal is complete and conforms the Request for Proposal. Small Business Participation Plan may be required and evaluated at the Delivery Order level.

50. Attachment 03 Section L, Page 2, Paragraph 1.1: The Government expresses its intent to potentially award "multiple" IDIQ contracts. Please explain the concept of operations and how the Government would implement multiple commercial products, where each complies with the entire statement of work.

Given a commercial item acquisition, and a SOW focused on implementing, operating and maintain a single product in support of Data Software Services. Additionally, the SOW requires the commercial item to be fully compliant, so the need for multiple products. It is simply not clear why the Government would need multiple awards.

A singular commercial solution capable of performing IAW the Statement of Work is required for consideration for the IDIQ. When a Delivery Order is issued to a qualifying offeror, they will be issued a Statement of Work specific to the work being performed to that Delivery Order. Each Delivery Order is a stand-alone contract and will have a separate SOW that may be all IDIQ Statement of Work requirements or a portion dependent on the Government's requirement.

51. If two or more offerors are "acceptable" with Factors I and II, how will the Government make the selection and award.

The Government does not explain what criteria is used if this condition exists, which is a likely scenario.

In reference to Attachment 4, para 6, the Government intends to award Delivery Orders to each qualifying offeror up to a maximum of 20. If an offer is determined by the Government to be acceptable on both factors, and conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, is deemed to be responsible, and capable, a Delivery Order to satisfy the minimum order amount will subsequently be issued to each offeror accordingly after the basic contract has been awarded. Future Delivery Orders will be ordered IAW FAR 16.505 based on specific criteria established for that Delivery Order requirement.

52. Each ITEM, unless it is not separately priced (NSP), requires the offeror to enter a price (FFP) for the entire period of performance (Labor, Training, Travel, Material, Licenses), yet the RFP appears silent regarding providing Basis of Estimates (BOE). Please explain how Government will evaluate the price in the model contract as fair and reasonable.

The draft RFP provides no guidance for offerors to justify price. Example, for travel how will the Government know how many trips to each location, including how many people per trip?

The Government is not requesting pricing information for this solicitation and will not evaluate any pricing information provided. Qualifying offerors will receive a Delivery Order to satisfy the minimum order amount. All subsequent Delivery Orders will require pricing information and price will be evaluated accordingly.

53. Please consider including contractor facility as a place of performance.

As a commercial software item, there is opportunity to gain efficiencies by leveraging the contractor facility.

The Government will consider this at the Delivery Order level.

54. Will DSS be competed on the STARFLEET MAC?

Data Software Services IDIQ will NOT be competed on the STARFLEET MAC.