Responses to RFP Questions 31Jan23.pdf

Government Responses to Industry Questions and Comments on RFP FA8806‐23‐R‐0001

1. Will the Government extend the RFP response date?

USG Response:

The RFP was issued on 17 January 2023 with proposals due 17 February 2023. Taking into consideration the amendment on 25 January 2023 and administrative changes 31 January 2023, the

Government will extend the proposal due date to 23 February 2023 IAW FAR 5.203(b) and FAR

12.205(c). All offerors must submit proposals by the response date listed on SAM.gov Notice #23‐3.

The Government does not intend to extend the proposal due date any further.

2. Given this RFP is requesting Commercial Software products, is teaming acceptable for this IDIQ RFP response?

USG Response:

See Attachment 2, Section 5.1.2.

3. Is the Government requiring pricing information per the instructions to complete SF1449 boxes 23 and 24 OR is the Government not requiring pricing information per the answer to #52 of the January

2023 Q&A responses?

USG Response:

Pricing information is NOT required or requested for the basic IDIQ contract. Attachment 2

Instructions to Offerors has been updated to reflect only box 17 and 30 of the SF 1449 is required to be completed. See RFP update on SAM.gov, posted on 25 January 2023.

4. ITO, Section 2.2 and 4.10: Given that the SAFE website contains the following instruction:

“DoD SAFE is NOT to be used for contract solicitation or proposal submission. Use the Procurement

Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) for time‐sensitive submissions.”, please clarify that offerors are to use PIEE instead of SAFE.

USG Response:

The Government revised the submission requirement to use PIEE instead of DoD Safe. Delivery of proposals shall still be coordinated with the PCO at least one business day in advance of the due date and time. Standard clause FAR 52.212‐1(f) and FAR 15.208 applies for any proposals submitted after the deadline.

5. ITO Section 3.6: Please clarify that the required consent for non‐Government advisors is NOT included in the 5‐page limitation for the Executive Summary, Narrative Summary?

USG Response:

Required consent for non‐Government advisors IS included in the 5‐page limitation for Volume I.

6. ITO Section 4.6: Please clarify that the Government does NOT require tab indexes for electronic submissions.

USG Response:

No tab indexes are required on electronic submissions. Only electronic submissions will be accepted.

7. ITO Section 7.1.4: Please clarify where in the solicitation requirements for the Small Business

Participation Commitment Document are defined.

USG Response:

Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) has been removed from Attachment

2. This is no longer required to be submitted at the Basic IDIQ level, however it will be evaluated at the Delivery Order level. SBPCD has been removed from Section 7.1.4.

8. ITO Section 4.9: Please clarify that the Government will accept Volume III, Model Contract, in PDF format.

USG Response:

The model contract should be submitted in .pdf format.

9. ITO Section 4.1 and 7.1.4: Is there a specific form or format needed for the SBPCD? RFP states to include a completed Small Business Participation Commitment Document. Will the Government provide the document needed to be completed and placed in Volume III?

USG Response:

Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) will be required at the Delivery Order level. SBPCD has been removed from Section 7.1.4.

10. ITO Section 4.1: Reference Text: "The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in this solicitation. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of pages specified. The Offeror shall provide two electronic copies unless otherwise specified. All proposals shall be unclassified."

If the Offeror uploads their response via SAFE are two electronic copies still required?

Offerors will submit their proposals via PIEE. Only one copy is required.

11. ITO Section 4.8 and 4.9: Is the Offeror required to deliver hard copy (Section 4.8), and an electronic copy (Section 4.9)?

USG Response:

Attachment 2 section 4.8 has been corrected. Only electronic copies are required, and no binding instructions apply.

12. ITO Section 4.1 and 7.1.3: Does the Government want a Small Business Subcontracting Plan included in Volume III? If yes, can we insert as pdf pages into the Word document?

A small business subcontracting plan shall be included in Volume III. Do not insert PDF pages within the word document.

13. ITO Section 4.10: Reference Text: "Electronic copies of the proposal shall be addressed to the PCO delivered via DoD SAFE or encrypted email. Delivery of proposals shall be coordinated with the PCO at least one (1) business day in advance of the due date and time. Early deliveries of proposals shall also be coordinated with the PCO. Offerors shall submit proposals through DoD SAFE to the contacts identified in paragraph 3.1 of this document unless directed otherwise by the PCO. Except as described herein, electronic copies of proposals are due 30 days after posting by 4:00 pm Pacific

Time. Proposals received after the date and time specified will be treated IAW FAR 52.212‐1(f)."

If the delivery is an upload to DoD SAFE does the Offeror upload time need to be coordinated one

(1) business day in advance of the due date? In addition, if the Offeror delivers early does that also need to be coordinated?

USG Response:

As proposals are no longer allowed to be submitted via DoD Safe, all prospective offerors are advised to submit their proposals via PIEE. Early deliveries shall also be coordinated with the PCO.

See Attachment 2, section 4.10 Delivery Instructions.

14. ITO Section 4.6: Reference Text: "Include a master Table of Contents of the entire proposal. Each volume shall contain a table of contents with more detail to delineate the contents within that volume."

Does the Government want all three Volume's TOC rolled into one? Does it need to include all headings or just the first heading levels since the Volume's TOC contain more detail? Does the

Government require the list of all Figures and Tables in the Master TOC?

USG Response:

See Attachment 2, Section 4.6.

15. ITO Section 4.6: Would the Government clarify what they mean by tab indexing? Does the

Government want Word created indexing entries that then creates an index list in addition to the

TOC? If a tab index is required, where should it be placed (i.e. Appendix) and does it count against page count? Or does the requirement mean to left justify Heading 1s, indent Heading 2s, further indent Heading 3s, etc.?

USG Response:

Physical tab indexing requirements has been removed and is no longer applicable to fully electronic proposal submissions. The Government does not intend on specifying word document numbering formats.

16. ITO Section 2.2.1: Reference Text: "The Contractor shall manage the setup and installation of the software platform in the government provided environments and be fully managed by the

Contractor on contract award. Once the platform installation has concluded the Contractor will undergo a technical checkout to ensure all listed technical requirements have been met. The

Contractor shall perform ongoing maintenance and regular patching of installed environments."

How many anticipated instances/enclaves of deployment will there be in the final solution

See Attachment 1, Statement of Work Section 2.1.1.

17. ITO Section 2.2.1: Reference Text: Reference Text: "The Contractor shall manage the setup and installation of the software platform in the government provided environments and be fully managed by the Contractor on contract award. Once the platform installation has concluded the

Contractor will undergo a technical checkout to ensure all listed technical requirements have been met. The Contractor shall perform ongoing maintenance and regular patching of installed environments."

What is the scale of deployments to include data volume and data velocity for deployments?

The Government anticipates large data sets to range from the hundreds of GBs to TBs. Specific requirements will be defined at the delivery order.

18. SOW Section 3.8.1 and 3.8.2: Anticipated number of users by user types to include data engineers, data scientists, end users, etc. If possible, please specify desired locations (physical and network level) and any special requirements such as personnel clearance levels, on‐premise restrictions, anticipated number of data sources, desired cloud provider (if applicable), unique cross domain solutions/guards that must be used, etc.

USG Response:

Anticipated user access will be defined at the deliver orders.

19. Attachment 3 Section 1 and 6: Given that the Government intends to make a maximum of 20 awards, please clarify the evaluation criteria for selecting 20 Offerors.

USG Response:

The evaluation criteria as specified in Attachment 3 "Evaluation—Commercial Products and

Commercial Services" will be used.

20. ITO Section 4.1, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10: Please confirm that Offerors are only required to submit electronic copies of their proposal. Please confirm that Offerors are only required to submit one (1) electronic copy of their proposal.

USG Response:

Only electronic copies will be accepted. Section 4.8 of Attachment 2 has been updated to reflect the electronic proposal submission requirement.

21. ITO, Section 4.1 and 6.2.1: Please clarify how Attachment 4, Commercial Software Questionnaire should be submitted. Also, please confirm that the two‐page Attachment 4 document is not intended to be included in the total 11‐page limitation for Vol II.

USG Response:

The commercial questionnaire WILL count toward the page limitation. The commercial questionnaire shall be submitted as a separate file but included with Volume II.

22. Attachment 3 Section 4.1.2: Would the government please clarify what sections of the SOW are required to be addressed in our response? Specifically, are Offerors required to address only

Section 3.1.1 or is the requirement to address all SOW sections; and what is required to be addressed to achieve an “Acceptable” rating for Factor 2: Technical Approach?

USG Response:

SOW Paragraph 3.1.1. is required to meet the minimum requirement for establishing the IDIQ.

23. ITO Section 4.9: According to Section 4.9 of Attachment 2, “The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2010/2016, MS Office Excel

2010/2016, MS Office Project 2010/2016, and MS Office Power Point 2010/2016, as applicable.”

However, many of the attachments to be included in the required volumes, such as Attachment 4

Commercial Software Questionnaire, SF1449, and DD Form 254, are in a PDF format.

Please confirm that Offerors are allowed to submit PDF copies of their proposal volumes via DoD

SAFE or encrypted email.

USG Response:

IAW Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) guidance, DoD Safe is no longer an available method for proposal submission. All source selection sensitive documents including the proposal shall be submitted to PIEE. Prospective offerors may submit documents in Microsoft (MS) compatible formats if applicable. If formatting preservation is required, .pdf format is acceptable. If tables, charts, or graphics are generated in Excel, a courtesy copy of the original spreadsheet should be included.

24. ITO Section 7.1.3: According to Section 7.1.3 of Attachment 2, “The Offeror shall provide a Small

Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219‐9.” FAR clause 52.219‐9 does not apply to small business concerns. It is understood that small business must submit a Small Business Participation

Submission Plan as part of Volume I, however, please confirm that small business offerors are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan as part of Volume III.

USG Response:

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.

Additionally, IAW Attachment 2 Section 5.1.4.1, offerors are advised that the Small Business

Participation Submission is not the same as the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required by FAR

52.219‐9. Large business offerors shall not utilize the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the place of the Small Business Participation Submission.

25. All sections of Attachment 7 appear to have been left blank. Will an updated DD254 be released with an amendment or should Offerors complete as is?

USG Response:

Offerors shall complete as is. Final DD254s will be issued and completed during the ordering process.

26. Is the data you’re seeking support services for imagery based?

USG Response:

The Government will address specific details at the Delivery Order level.

27. Is the sought‐after support for the management of GFI data, is this seeking commercial data solutions, or both?

USG Response:

The Government is seeking a commercial solution.

28. Is this opportunity scoped specifically for certain OEMs or is maximum competition being encouraged?

USG Response:

The Government is seeking maximum competition to meet this requirement

29. ITO Section 5.1.1: Reference Text: "“The Offeror shall provide an overview of its service rollout plans, including coverage roadmap.”

Can the Government please clarify what it means by service rollout plans and coverage roadmap and what it intends for the offeror to describe?

USG Response:

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

30. ITO Section 4: Can the Government clarify if the 11‐page limit allotted to Volume 2: Technical

Approach must be broken out a certain way between the two evaluated factors (i.e. 2 pg. for commercial questionnaire, 9 pg. for technical approach)? Or is this left to the offeror’s discretion?

USG Response:

All information must be included in accordance with Attachment 2 for the Government to use the criteria defined in Attachment 3 for proposal evaluation. The commercial questionnaire must be completed in its entirety.

31. ITP Section 7.1.2: Can the Government clarify which blocks of this form the offeror must complete and which blocks the Government will complete (e.g., Security Guidance, block 13)?

USG Response:

Attachment 2, Section 7.1.2 has been updated; blocks 6, 7, and 8 is required.

32. ITO Section 4.1: There are 3 proposal volumes in section 4.1. Paragraph 7.1.3 includes the requirement for offerors to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219‐9; and paragraph 7.1.4 includes the requirement to submit the Small Business Participation Commitment

Document (SBPCD).

If a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required, in which volume should it be included? Given there is no pricing required for proposal submission, how is the contractor expected to arrive at the information necessary to complete these documents?

USG Response:

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted as part of Volume III. Section 7.1.4 has been removed and will be addressed at the Delivery Order level.

33. Will the Government consider updating the RFP SOW to provide Background on this opportunity?

USG Response:

This acquisition will establish a commercial multiple award IDIQ for Data Software Services. Any further information (requirements, background, etc.) will be communicated to the IDIQ vendor pool during the ordering process.

34. Attach. 2 ITO Section 3.6 states that “the Offeror shall expressly provide its consent in Volume I:

Executive Summary to the release of its proposal information to the companies listed in Table 2.7‐1”

(should be 3.6‐1). Shall Offerors include this information as a fifth (new) section, after the Narrative

Summary, Offeror Team, Master TOC, and SB Participation Submission sections?

USG Response:

Expressed consent to release proposal information to Non‐Government Advisors (as identified in

Table 3.6‐1) shall be included in the Executive Summary. Creating a new fifth new section will not be required nor recommended. Volume I is revised from "Executive Summary" to "Executive Summary and Small Business Submission."

35. In Attach. 2 ITO Section 4.1, in the Table, the Volume I: Executive Summary Content Description includes four sections, the first of which is listed as “Narrative Summary”. Section 5.1.1 refers to this section as “Executive Summary” (i.e., the same title as the Volume). Is the Government using the terms interchangeably? If so, what title shall the Offeror use for the first section of Volume I?

USG Response:

Section 4.1 table has been updated. Use Volume I: Executive Summary and Small Business

Submission as the title.

36. Attach. 2 ITO Section 4.2 states that the page limit in the “Executive Summary” (Executive Summary

Volume?) – which is shown in the Table in Attach. 2 ITO Section 4.1 as “5 Pages” – “applies only to the Narrative Summary” section of the Volume; however, the Small Business Participation

Submission – also part of this Volume – is described in Attach. 2 ITO Section 5.1.4.2 as having a page limit of “2 pages”. Do the “2 pages” count against the “5 Pages”?

USG Response:

Confirming section 5.1.4.2 page limit on the Small Business Submission of 2‐pages is correct. Section

4.1 and 4.2 are updated to reflect Executive summary and Small Business Participation Submission documents will be counted towards the 5 page limit.

37. Attach. 2 ITO Section 4.2 references the “Technical Appendix”, but this proposal component is not mentioned elsewhere. Will the Government provide additional information on the Technical

Appendix? Shall it be located in Volume I: Executive Summary?

USG Response:

The technical appendix may only be used to provide reference documents identified within the

Technical submission and will not be evaluated, nor counted against the page limitation. Include the

Technical Appendix in Volume II, if prepared. No additional information will be specified for appendix as it will not be evaluated.

38. Attach. 2 ITO Section 4.2 states "The Technical Appendix may only be used to provide pertinent reference documentation related to information that has been summarized in the page‐limited

Technical section, such as complete Service Level Agreement (SLA) forms, . . . ." Will the

Government accept hyperlinks to an Offeror’s commercial agreements, rather than requiring

Offeror’s to include hundreds of additional pages? The agreements also can cause an electronic file in Microsoft Word to become quite large and unwieldy.

USG Response:

No, the Government will not accept hyperlinks.

39. Attach. 2 ITO Section 4.3, 1st para., requires the use of Times New Roman 12‐point font for text.

Attach. 2 ITO Section 4.3, 2nd para., states that “For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point” but doesn’t specify the font type. May Offerors choose any font type, such as Arial 10‐point font, for use in tables, charts, graphs, and figures?

USG Response:

Times New Roman font shall be used for the tables, charts, graphs, and figures.

40. Attach. 2 ITO Section 4.3 states "Lastly, each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION‐‐SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CUI"

Will the Government confirm that the "CUI" at the end is correct? Attach. 2 ITO Sections 4.1 and 4.4 explicitly state that proposal responses shall be unclassified, and there are no instances where the

RFP references dissemination control markings.

Controlled Unclassified Information is the correct marking, see FAR 3.104‐4(c).

41. Attach. 2 ITO Section 6.2 states "For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed offeror's proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach."

No subfactors are identified in either Attach. 2 ITO or Attach. 3 Evaluation Criteria. Will the

Government remove this "subfactor" reference?

USG Response:

Removed the word subfactor from Attachment 2.

42. Attach. 8 Ordering Procedure, paras. 4. and 5., state that "The ceiling price for all orders is $950M", and "The maximum value, not to be exceeded, will be $950M". The amount shown in the SF1449, on page 27 of 127, is $500,000,000. What is the correct amount?

USG Response:

The ceiling price amount for all orders on the SF 1449 and Attachment 8 Ordering procedures have both been corrected and revised to $900M.

43. Attach. 8 Ordering Procedure, para. 6., states "Orders shall be issued on an FFP basis. The contract line‐item number (CLIN) structure on each order will reflect the FFP for each line item." Will the

Government consider Delivery Order contract types other than FFP, such as FFP/LOE or T&M, for

Delivery Orders that include substantial development and implementation activities?

USG Response:

The Government intends to award FFP Delivery Orders.

44. Will cloud and/or on‐premises infrastructure be provided as GFE for Delivery Orders? How will infrastructure prices be evaluated?

USG Response:

The appropriate method will be decided at the Delivery Order. Fair Opportunity Proposal Requests will detail the required information for consideration of each Delivery Order. Pricing is not required in response to this RFP and will not be evaluated at the IDIQ level.

45. Will the Government provide a list, description, and estimated size (e.g., small – less than $10M, medium = $10‐30M, large = greater than $30M) of the anticipated Delivery Orders on the DSS IDIQ?

See Attachment 8, Ordering Procedures.