Responses to RFP Questions 08Feb23.pdf

Government Response to Industry Questions and Comments on RFP FA8806-23-R-0001 08 February 2023

1. The ITO section 4.6 requires a master Table of Contents of the entire proposal. It also states, "A Table of Contents does not count against page limitations." ITO Table 4.-1 and 5.1.3 include the Master Table of Contents after the Offeror's Team section and prior to the Small Business Participation Submission.

Question: Does the master Table of Contents of the entire proposal count against the page limitations of Vol. I? If it does not, is it acceptable to move to the end of Vol. I: Executive Summary and Small Business Submission so it follows all the page limited sections?

USG Response:

Clarifying the TOC will not count against the page limit. Recommend offerors follow the structure and order as defined within the solicitation.

2. For clarification, FAR 52.227-14 RIGHTS IN DATA - GENERAL (May 2014), Alternate III, (Dec 2007) and 52.227-19 COMMERCIAL COMPUTER SOFTWARE LICENSE (Dec 2007) are included in the model contract of the solicitation on pages 40 and 46, respectively.

However, per FAR Part 12.212 COMPUTER SOFTWARE, commercial computer software or commercial computer software documentation shall be acquired under licenses customarily provided to the public to the extent such licenses are consistent with Federal law and otherwise satisfy the Government’s needs. Please confirm that FAR Part 12.212 shall supersede 52.227-19 and 52.227-14.

USG Response:

Confirming that FAR Part 12.212 applies to commercial software. The applicability of other data rights clauses will be specified within the individual delivery order depending on the requirement (ie. Application Development). Relevant data rights clauses are included as prescribed.

3. Entire Solicitation: Please consider removing or providing the password to the latest Solicitation file.

USG Response:

The SF 1449 has been unlocked to allow for required fields to be populated by the offeror.

4. Attachment 2, Page 10, Section 6.2.1: Factor 1 requires offeror to deliver Attachment 4.

Previous Q&A provided guidance to deliver the completed form as an attachment, yet still within page count for Vol II. Should offerors reformat the table/form to comply with ITO paragraph 4.3 "Page Size and Format?" Specifically, the page margins and the font on the Attachment 4 provided by the Government do not comply with ITO 4.3. Also, should offerors replace the Government's title page with an offeror's title page.

USG Response:

Attachment 4 will be counted as a separate attachment but included in Volume II. Offerors may not revise the format, font, or font size of Attachment 4. Attachment 4 is included in the Volume II page limitation.

5. Attachment 2, Page 10, Section 7: Instructions state to fill in all blanks in the solicitation, which implies the entire model contract (in addition to the specifics for SF 1449 and DD 254). Does the Government intend that offerors deliver the entire model contract and should we eliminate those solicitation attachments not typical for a model contract (specifically solicitation Attachments 2 3, 4, and 6 (see solicitation page 127))?

USG Response:

The offeror is encouraged to read through the entire model contract and populate as directed. No attachments may be removed.

6. Attachment 1, Section 2.3: Reference Text: Data Connections, Ingestion, and Integration

Question: Is the government able to share the data formats and data velocities for each of the following data connections required to source systems:- 2.3.1.1 Space Domain Awareness Data- 2.3.1.2 Personnel Readiness Data- 2.3.1.3 Combatant Command operational related Data- 2.3.2.4 Equipment mission capability status?

USG Response:

Prospective offerors are encouraged to review all responses to industry questions. Delivery orders will provide specific information as necessary.

7. Attachment 1, Section 6.4: Is the government able to describe in detail which networks will be targeted for deployment? And whether that deployment is required to be on-premises, in cloud or hybrid? And if cloud or hybrid, then which cloud service provider is being targeted for deployment?

Offerors shall refer to Attachment 2 Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services and Attachment 3, Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services, to ensure proposals meet all requirements of the solicitation.

8. Attachment 2, Page 8, Section 5.1.1: Please clarify the purpose and intent of the Coverage Roadmap. In addition, provide a description of the type of information the government expects to Offerors to provide.

The offeror should describe the ability to support the proposed commercial solution.

9. Attachment 2, Page 8, Section 5.1.1: Will execution of the Coverage Roadmap be executed by one or more awardees? If more than one, please provide further instructions regarding the assumptions Offerors should make in preparing their response.

Delivery orders will provide specific information as necessary.

10. Attachment 1, Section 6, How does the government plan to procure Cloud as GFE?

(Referencing 6. Government furnished equipment (GFE) and Support).

The method of procuring GFE for cloud hosting will be specified at the DO level.

11. Will the government provide cloud, and therefore all bidders can utilize that at no cost or will each Prime team be responsible for supplying cloud capabilities as a component of the cost of their Task Order Proposal?

Fair Opportunity Proposal Requests will include instructions for submitting proposals and the evaluation criteria that will be used to determine delivery order award.

12. SOW, Section 6. What contract vehicles are under consideration?

The Government will consider all contract vehicles during the ordering period. Delivery orders will define the Government's cloud hosting requirements and availability of cloud hosting as GFE.