Consolidated Question(s) and Answer(s) (NCCS)(Solicitation 02-14-24).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 42 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Network Cyber and Cloud Support (NCCS) Services
- Solicitation number
- 70RTAC24R00000006
About this file
This document summarizes a request for proposal for Network Cyber and Cloud Support services. The solicitation seeks proposals to acquire these services on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Office of the Chief Information Officer to support its Network Operations Security Center. Key details include that the solicitation establishes an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract with a single award to provide services described in the statement of work such as operating cybersecurity and malware analysis facilities. The response due dates are broken into three phases with the final phase III proposals due on March 15, 2024. Pricing is to be submitted using the attached labor category pricing schedule template. There is no indication of set asides or mention of incumbent contractors.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
NCCS Industry Day Q & A
| Question No. | |||
| # | QUESTIONS | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | |
| 1 | The DD 254 shows “None” for Safeguarding however the instructions state as copied from the instructions that there is a Top-Secret Level In Safeguarding for “SAM, IDIQ, RFP NUMBER 70RTAC24R00000006 Network Cyber and Cloud Support (NCCS) Services”. Please clarify. | The requirement for a Top Secret Level of Safeguarding has been removed from the requirement and no longer applies. | |
| 2 | Any possible reconsideration of the TS Level of Safeguarding requirement for the NOSC/NCCS opportunity? | The requirement for a Top Secret Level of Safeguarding has been removed from the requirement and no longer applies. | |
| 3 | Section L.4.2.1 Factor 1 – Facility Clearance and Level Of Safeguarding. With classified information and/or equipment being restricted to a DHS facility and the DD-254 not authorizing safeguarding, will the government remove the L.4.2.1 Factor 1 Top Secret Level of Safeguarding requirement as classified information will only be stored at DHS facilities? | The requirement for a Top Secret Level of Safeguarding has been removed from the requirement and no longer applies. | |
| 4 | Section L.4.2.1 Factor 1 – Facility Clearance and Level of Safeguarding. This section of the solicitation states that all contractors must have Top Secret Level of Safeguarding however, a contractor cannot be approved for Top Secret Level safeguarding without first being required to possess. Given Top Secret Level of Safeguarding is not currently a requirement, will the government make this a post-award requirement if the need arises, or remove it in its entirety? An alternative option is to require only the Prime (or JV managing partner) to have access to a current accredited SCIF with a certain proximity of DHS headquarters in the event a rapid requirement emerges during execution of the contract. | ||
| The requirement for a Top Secret Level of Safeguarding has been removed from the requirement and no longer applies. | |||
| 5 | Section L.4.2.1 requires all team members to demonstrate a current active Facility Clearance at the Top Secret level and Top Secret Level of Safeguarding. However, the “Top Secret Level of Safeguarding” requirement contradicts the RFP requirements. Specifically: | ||
| a) | The DD254 in Attachment J-4, Level of Safeguarding at Contractor Facility is “None,” with the notes stating that “Contract performance and access to unclassified information only is authorized at the contractor’s site” | ||
| b) | The SOW states that “Contractors will only be required to access classified information/materials at DHS SCIFs or an accredited contractor SCIF” | ||
| c) | In the questions and answers, the government stated that “An accredited contractor SCIF is not a required.” | ||
| Since the government’s requirement only requires unclassified information to be stored at contractor’s site and an accredited contractor SCIF is “not required,” we respectfully ask the government to modify sections L.4.2.1 and M.2 to only require an active “Facility Clearance at the Top Secret” level and remove the requirement for a Top Secret at the Safeguarding level. | The requirement for a Top Secret Level of Safeguarding has been removed from the requirement and no longer applies. | ||
| 6 | Section M.2’s requirement for all parties to have a Top Secret “Level of Safeguarding for classified Information/Material required at Contractor facility” is unduly restrictive because the solicitation’s requirements do not require classified information to be stored at team members’ sites. Specifically, the RFP states “Contractors will only be required to access classified information/materials at DHS SCIFs or an accredited contractor SCIF.” Furthermore, the DD254 states “Contract performance and access to unclassified information only is authorized at the contractor’s site.” The RFP’s DD254 also states that to request a SCIF for accreditation a “Contract Company must possess a Top Secret Facility Clearance granted by DCSA...” Therefore, the RFP M.2 requirement for a Safeguarding level of Top Secret is unnecessary for this requirement. FAR 15.303 (requiring the Source Selection Authority to “ensure consistency” between the solicitation requirements and evaluation factors); FAR 15.304 states that evaluation factors and subfactors must “represent the key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in the source selection decision…”; FAR 11.002(a) requires agencies to (a) specify needs in a manner designed to promote full and open competition, with due regard to the nature of the supplies or services to be acquired; and (b) only include restrictive provisions or conditions to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency. Will the government remove the Top Secret Safeguarding level requirements to comply with the FAR? | The requirement for a Top Secret Level of Safeguarding has been removed from the requirement and no longer applies. | |
| 7 | Section M.2 states “DHS will verify whether each Offeror and each of the Offeror’s team members, partners, and subcontractors has an active Top Secret Facility Clearance...” This requirement is inconsistent with DCSA guidelines, where it is permitted for the prime contractor to hold clearances for employees of a subcontractor that does not have an active top-secret. This requirement hinders subcontracting opportunities for small businesses who do not have an active Top Secret clearance. Would the government limit the active Top Secret FCL to only the prime contractor (including JV/CTA members)? | The prime cannot hold PCLs for a sub, otherwise that person is an employee of the prime. All offerors must have an active FCL, at the level identified in the solicitation, as applicable. | |
| 8 | Please correct the Volume names for PHASE I: Volume I and PHASE II: Volume II within the table on page 104. They are currently both labeled “Technical Proposal.” | Volume I has been renamed "Facility Clearance". Volume II has been renamed "Corporate Experience". | |
| 9 | Please clarify whether Questions 1 and 2 are allocated 250 words each per the table on page 104, or if they are allocated 2 pages for the response for each question per page 109. | Responses to each question shall not exceed 250 words in length. | |
| 10 | Phase I Volume I Facility Clearance and Level of Safeguarding: Does the Prime Offeror need to include printouts of every party’s Facility Clearance level and Level of Safeguarding for submission? | Yes, this would be the NISS report via DCSA. A report must be submitted for the JV and all teaming partners. | |
| 11 | Is the requested information listed in a-j on page 118 excluded from the Factor 6 page count? | The information listed in a-j on page 118 is excluded from the Factor 6 page count. | |
| 12 | Will bidders be provided the opportunity to tour the NOSC during proposal preparation? | No. The NOSC is comprised of a hybrid (part on-site, part off-site), multi-site operation that operates out of multiple facilities, none of which is currently designated as the prime or main facility. | |
| 13 | The SOW states that services will be provided for DHS HQ OCIO and “select DHS components”. Which components are in/out of scope? | Inasmuch as the NOSC operates at an enterprise capacity, it interacts with and provides services to all DHS components. There are differing types and levels of services that the NOSC provides to these components, a situation which will continue to evolve. |
In terms of which components are expected to leverage the IDIQ for individual Task Orders to support their NOSCs or NOCs and SOCs, currently only DHS HQ and CBP are known to be approved to leverage this IDIQ. However, other components may be permitted to leverage this contract in future years.
| 14 | "The Contractor shall ensure that the NOSC maintains continuous Cybersecurity Services CSP Program Center of Excellence (COE) accreditation for providing both NOC and SOC services." What does this entail? | The NOSC is accredited to provide Cybersecurity Services as a CSP COE by the OCIO CISO Directorate; the NOSC recently passed its latest accreditation and was re-accredited. The vendor will be expected to design, manage, operate, and contiuously improve its operations to continuously improve the NOSC's scores in the various scoring metric categories and improve the NOSC's overall maturity levels. These standards will be provided in the reading room for consideration during Phase 3 of the solicitation. | |
| 15 | "Tier 0 is user self-help (including, in this instance, interactive portals for user reporting of events and incidents)". Does the interactive portal exist? | Certain Tier 0 functions and service requests do currently exist via ServiceNow; however, automation, orchestration, integration, and expansion of Tier 0 and Tier 1 functions by optimizing the use of tools / technology and process improvements is an objective of this contract. | |
| 16 | "The Contractor shall operate cyber forensics and malware analysis laboratory facilities that are accessible and available". Who is responsible for providing the facilities? | DHS has a forensics and malware analysis lab that the vendors will use primarily. This does not preclude vendors from using or proposing to use their own CFMA facilities to supplement DHS’s facilities to provide improved capabilities in this area. | |
| 17 | "The Contractor shall conduct Cybersecurity Accreditation Audits of all DHS organizations | ||
| providing NOC or SOC services and their associated Subscribers." - Will the contractor need to be certified to conduct the audits? | Should this Task be executed, the contractor will work with the government to provide qualified staff to meet this requirement. Ultimately, the government staff in CISO Directorate own the final assessment and are responsible for adjudicating audit pass/fail status. | ||
| 18 | If "The Contractor shall administer the Cybersecurity Services Provider Program" doesn't that create a conflict if the Contractor also conducts the audits of the Program? | There is a potential for conflict of interest, yes. However, there are different Federal employees that will ultimately be responsible and accountable for any and all findings in audits. The government expects that the vendor can work with the government to minimize the extent to which it will be assessing its own operations, whether via by sub-contracting certain audit types or leveraging different management structures to do so. | |
| 19 | Will DHS provide GFE for the Fly-away kits? | Yes, DHS will provide the GFE for the fly-away kits. | |
| 20 | Is there any security information to be included in the Monthly reports? | This will be adjudicated at the Task Order level. | |
| 21 | The reading room is open March 3 – March 29 from 10:00 am – 3:00 pm. Given that the Phase II proposal is due on March 15, can the reading room be opened earlier? | The reading room will be opened weekdays only from 10:00 am - 3:00 p.m. beginning March 4, 2024 and will close on March 15, 2024. The government will allow questions to be submitted beginning March 4, 2024. The deadline for questions is 3:00 PM ET March 15, 2024. | |
| 22 | Within the RFP there appears to be conflicting information regarding requirements for L.4.2.1 -specifically regarding the required level of Safeguarding. L.4.2.1 states “The Offeror as the Prime Contractor or all Teaming Partners proposed in a Joint Venture or Mentor Protégé response, to include all potential sub-contractors, are required to demonstrate their current active Facility Clearance at the Top Secret level and Top Secret Level of Safeguarding.” Whereas within the DD254 section 1b “Level of safeguarding for classified information / material required at contractor facility” states “None.” Recommend the Government remove the requirement for Top Secret Level of Safeguarding for offerors. | Yes. The requirement for a Top Secret Level of Safeguarding has been removed from the requirement and no longer applies. | |
| 23 | The RFP states: The Offeror as the Prime Contractor or all Teaming Partners proposed in a Joint Venture or Mentor Protégé response, to include all potential sub-contractors, are required to demonstrate their current active Facility Clearance at the Top Secret level and Top Secret Level of Safeguarding. Offerors shall provide official company name(s) and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code(s) for the Prime Contractor or all Teaming Partners to include, for example, Joint Ventures or Mentor Protégés. In order to increase competition, would the Government consider revising this requirement to read: “...demonstrate their current active Facility Clearance at the Top Secret level and obtain a Top Secret Level of Safeguarding accreditation following award..."? | All entities in the teaming arrangement must have an active TS FCL at time of submission. The Level of Safeguarding requirement has been removed. | |
| 24 | Comments: The RFP is labeled as a "Draft NOSC NCCS Request for Proposal" on every page. Did the Government release the correct version of the RFP? |
| Recommendation: Please verify that the RFP is the correct version. An RFP amendment to delete the "Draft" notation would also be appreciated. | The RFP is in its correct version (Final). The word "Draft" has been removed in the RFP header. | |
| 25 | Comments: The facility clearance section is limited to 1 page, but requires "The Offeror as the Prime Contractor or all Teaming Partners proposed in a Joint Venture or Mentor Protégé response, to include all potential sub-contractors, are required to demonstrate their current active Facility Clearance at the Top Secret level and Top Secret Level of Safeguarding." and also requires POC information. It is not clear what information is to be provided to address the "demonstrate their current active Facility Clearance" requirement. |
| Recommendation: Please clarify what is expected in this section and ensure that the page count limit will accommodate the required information. | To demonstrate their current active FCL, a current NISS report via DCSA must be provided. | |
| 26 | Comments: The facility clearance section requires "The Offeror as the Prime Contractor or all Teaming Partners proposed in a Joint Venture or Mentor Protégé response, to include all potential sub-contractors, are required to demonstrate their current active Facility Clearance at the Top Secret level and Top Secret Level of Safeguarding." Top Secret Safeguarding facility clearance for all potential sub-contractors may unnecessarily limit who can support our team. |
| Recommnedation: Please remove the phrase "to include all potential sub-contractors" from this requirement. | The requirement for a Top Secret Level of Safeguarding has been removed from the requirement and no longer applies. | ||
| 27 | Could the Government please allow offerors to provide a title page, table of contents, and acronym list for each volume that would be considered exempt from the total page count? | The Government will not include the title page, table of contents and acronym list in the final page count for each volume. | |
| 28 | Section L.4.2.1 mandates that all team members, including subcontractors, have not only a Top Secret (TS) Facility Clearance, but also TS Level of Safeguarding. This requirement limits the ability of otherwise qualified firms, including many DHS mission-focused mid-tiers and small businesses to compete. Most have TS facility clearances and the demonstrated ability to securely deliver on DHS contracts. Please consider removal of this requirement. | The requirement for a Top Secret Level of Safeguarding has been removed from the requirement and no longer applies. | |
| 29 | The page limits for Factor 3: Staffing and Management Approach specify that the 12 page limit is inclusive of the resumes, subcontracting plan, and teaming agreements. Could the Government please make these items excluded from the 12 page limit? | The page limit for Factor 3, Staffing and Management Approach, has been increased to 25 pages. | |
| 30 | Could the Government please clarify the page limits for Factor 6 - Past Performance? We recommend allowing 3 pages per past performance reference. | The past performance reference is limited to 2 pages maximum. | |
| 31 | On page 104, the solicitation specifies that responses should be limited to "No more than 250 words per question response," translating to approximately half a page. However, on page 109, specifically under Phase II evaluation, Factor 2 – Corporate Technical Experience and Reference Checks, the solicitation states that "Responses to each question shall not exceed two (2) pages." This is a significant difference. Please confirm that it is 2 pages not 250 words. | The response to each question shall not exceed 250 words per question. | |
| 32 | Phase II evaluation, Factor 2 – Corporate Technical Experience and Reference Checks (page 109), the solicitation states that "Responses to each question shall not exceed two (2) pages." Please consider increasing the page limit to 3-pages per question. | The response to each question shall not exceed 250 words per question. | |
| 33 | Phase II evaluation, Factor 2 – Corporate Technical Experience and Reference Checks (page 109), the solicitation states to "...provide reference information for (3) projects of similar size, scope, and complexity," and that "each reference information response shall not exceed one (1) page in length." Please consider increasing the response page limit to 2-pages in length to allow enough room to adequately provide project scope and complexity information. | Each reference information response shall not exceed one page in length. | |
| 34 | In the Q&A provided with the solicitation, the answer to Question 43 was: "Yes, Offerors may cite experience above and beyond the experience related to the three projects for which reference information will be provided." Please confirm more specifically that in answering the two questions Offerors may cite teaming partner experience that is above and beyond the experiences for which references will be provided. | Yes, other examples outside of the three official projects may be referenced. However, this will not increase the total number of pages allowed in the overall response to each question, and only three references will be accepted. | |
| 35 | In L.6.2.2 Factor 4: Technical Approach, the language states "The Government will evaluate the technical approach proposed by the Offeror to provide the services described in the SOW." However, the instructions also require Offerors to answer a set of 4 questions. Could the Government please clarify if offerors are to provide a technical approach response for all SOW 3.0 task areas AND answer the 4 questions in the solicitation? Or, are Offerors to only answer the 4 questions in L.6.2.2 rather than individually address each SOW 3.0 task? | See page 105 of the RFP document, which details requirements for each evaluation Factor. Yes, the Offeror will be required to both provide a Technical Approach (Factor 4; up to 25 pages) that addresses all of the requirements in the SOW, as well as provide written responses to each of the five technical scenarios (Factor 5; up to 10 pages total, maximum of two pages per question). | |
| 36 | In reference to section L.3 (page 104) Proposal Submission Instructions, could the Government provide clarification on how they desire each Volume and Factor be submitted? Are all of the line items within the Proposal Submission table supposed to be provided as separate individual files? | Please refer to Section L.3 Proposal Submission Instructions (page 104). The due date for the individual volume submissions has been added to the table. | |
| 37 | Are there specific email file size limitations of which offerors should be aware of for transmitting final documents? | The maximum email file size is 20 MB. If the file exceeds 20 MB, the file would need to be transmitted as a zip file. | |
| 38 | Reference Attachment J-2 Pricing Schedule. The following labor categories (LCATs), both Government and Contractor Site, do not include the standard three tiers (i.e., Senior, Mid and/or Junior Levels) found within most LCAT categories. Some appear to have duplicates while others may have been omitted. Request the Government clarify the LCAT tiering for these positions and issue an amended Attachment J-2. |
Task 2: Project Manager (2 Seniors, 1 Mid, 0 Juniors) Task 2: Technical Writer (0 Seniors, 1 Mid, 2 Juniors) Task 3: Cybersecurity Program Manager (1 Senior, 1 Mid, 0 Juniors) Task 3: Network and Infrastructure Program Manager (1 Senior, 1 Mid, 0 Juniors) Task 3: Service Delivery Program Manager (1 Senior, 1 Mid, 0 Juniors) Task 3: Service Desk Program Manager (1 Senior, 1 Mid, 0 Juniors) Task 3: Network Administrator (2 Senior, 1 Mid, 0 Juniors) Task 3: Web Administrator (3 Senior, 0 Mid, 0 Juniors)
Revised Attachment J-2 (Pricing Schedule) is included, including corrections to both of the Task 2 and the Task 3 Network Administrator and Web Administrator LCATs.
Regarding the Task 3 Program Manager positions, the government does not believe that it is possible to have a junior-level LCAT for the four Program Manager positions.
| 39 | Reference Attachment J-2 Pricing Schedule. All labor categories (LCATs) in Attachment J-2 have a specified tiering level (i.e., Senior, Mid and/or Junior). Attachment J-3 provides the relevant LCAT descriptions, but the RFP does not provide any direction on the minimum years of experience associated with each LCAT/level. Additionally, there is no RFP direction on the minimum education required by each LCAT and/or level. To ensure the Government’s fair and reasonable evaluation is based on a set of consistent labor qualifications (i.e., position description, minimum experience, minimum education) for all offerors, request the Government provide minimum education and experience levels for all labor categories and levels. | Revised Attachment J-3 (Labor Category Descriptions) is included with definitions for junior-level, mid-level, and senior-level. |
| 40 | Section L.6.4, Factor 7 - Price, states that the offeror's price proposal shall be IAW the instruction provided in Attachment J-2, Pricing Schedule. There are no instructions in Attachment J-2. Request the Government clarify this requirement. | The Pricing Schedule, Attachment J-2, shall be prepared IAW the solicitation instructions in Section L.6.4, Factor 7 - Price. |
| 41 | The current Section L.6.4, Factor 7 - Price, is unclear regarding the need for any pricing documents beyond the Cover Letter (2 pages), Pricing Assumptions (2 pages) and Completed Attachment J-2. Request the Government confirm these three elements comprise a complete and compliant Price Proposal or provide direction otherwise. | Government confirms the three documents required for a complete price proposal is the cover page, pricing assumptions and Attachment J-2, Pricing Worksheet. |
| 42 | Section M indicates that the Price evaluation is a two-part exercise. First, the Government will make a fair and reasonableness determination of the proposed rates. Second, Section M.3.3 of the RFP states that the Government will evaluate the offeror's Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will consist of the offeror's price for the base requirement, the price for all options, and the six month option to extend price (FAR 52.217-8). Since Attachment J-12 only requires rates for the ~200 LCATs, the RFP provides no basis for a "price." Request the Government clearly define how this TEP will be calculated or consider removing it as an evaluation requirement. | The price evaluation will assess accuracy, completeness, and reasonableness. This will be a verification to determine if the information presented is accurate and complete, rates are included for all required labor categories, labor rates are consistent with published price lists, discounts are included, figures are correctly calculated, and rates are presented in the prescribed format. |
| 43 | Section M includes an evaluation of the fair and reasonableness of the proposed labor rates. Based on the requirements of the solicitation and Statement of Work, labor rates will need to accommodate a diverse range of parameters, to include the following: |
-- Contractor risk associated with Time and Material and Labor Hour contract types -- Annual escalation variations, given the nature of Information Technology and in particular Cybersecurity-based labor categories -- Performance at DHS and Contractor facilities within the Washington, DC metropolitan area and throughout CONUS, including Stennis, Mississippi and Chandler, Arizona.
-- Contractor persoSection M includes an evaluation of the fair and reasonableness of the proposed labor rates. Based on the requirements of the solicitation and Statement of Work, labor rates will need to accommodate a diverse range of parameters, to include the following:
-- Contractor personnel security clearance requirements, up to and including TS/SCI SAP -- The Government's stated desire for discounts from the awarded price list per Section L.6.4, Factor 7 - Price Request the Government confirm that these parameters will be included in the fair and reasonableness evaluation of the proposed ceiling rates. The following areas will be included as part of the price evaluation:
-- Annual escalation variations, given the nature of Information Technology and in particular Cybersecurity-based labor categories -- Contractor personnel security clearance requirements, up to and including TS/SCI SAP -- The Government's stated desire for discounts from the awarded price list per Section L.6.4, Factor 7 - Price -- Performance at DHS and Contractor facilities within the Washington, DC metropolitan area and throughout CONUS, including Stennis, Mississippi and Chandler, Arizona.
| 44 | Section L.4.2.1 (Factor 1 - Facility Clearance and Level of Safeguarding) requires Offerors to demonstrate “current active Facility Clearance at the Top Secret level and Top Secret Level of Safeguarding” for “all potential sub-contractors”. However, Section G.11. (Teaming Partners and Subcontractors) implies that Offerors can request approval from the CO to add subcontractors to the IDIQ contract after the original award of the IDIQ. Combined, these two sections create some ambiguity. Request that the government remove the requirement to identify "all potential” subcontractors as part of the initial IDIQ proposal submission. There could be a need in the future for subcontractors not identified at this stage to meet mission requirements at the task order level. | All potential sub-contractors must be identified at proposal submission to be included at the IDIQ award. If there is a need to add additional sub-contractors after IDIQ award to provide support at the task order level, the IDIQ will be modified to incorporate the additions. |
| 45 | Will the government consider evaluating the Small Business Subcontracting Plan that is part of Factor 3 (Factor 3: Staffing and Management Approach) on a Pass/Fail basis since this is an IDIQ? If not, to achieve a High Confidence evaluation rating for Factor must Offerors identify their small business subcontractors that will fulfill Small Business Subcontracting Plan goals? | The government will not evaluate the small business subcontracting plan on a pass/fail basis. Offerors must identify their small business contractors as part of their proposal submission. |
| 46 | As written in RFP Section M.3 Relative Order of Importance, Factor 3 Staffing and Management Approach is more important than the combination of Technical Approach, Scenario Responses and Past Performance. Is it the government's intent to place that level of weighting on Staffing and Management? | Factor 3, Factor 4, Factor 5, and Factor 6 are of equal importance. |
| 47 | Section L.4.2.1 Factor 1 – Facility Clearance and Level of Safeguarding states, "The Offeror as the Prime Contractor or all Teaming Partners proposed in a Joint Venture or Mentor Protégé response, to include all potential sub-contractors, are required to demonstrate their current active Facility Clearance at the Top Secret level and Top Secret Level of Safeguarding." |
Section M.2 states, "The Government will evaluate Factor 1 - Facility Clearance and Level of Safeguarding during Phase I on a PASS/FAIL basis. DHS will verify whether each Offeror and each of the Offeror’s team members, partners, and subcontractors has an active Top Secret Facility Clearance and Top Secret Level of Safeguarding by utilizing the Facility Verification Notification from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency’s (DCSA) National Industrial Security System (NISS)."
| Will the Government consider evaluating only the Prime Offeror's clearance if not proposing a Joint Venture or Mentor Protégé arrangement and allow Subcontractors to have less than TS with Safeguarding clearance? This enhances competition, improves small business utilization, and provides a path for small businesses to obtain/upgrade their Facility Security Clearances. | The TS 'Level of Safeguarding' requirement has been removed. However, the JV and all teaming partners must have the applicable FCL, as identified in the solicitation instructions, at the time of proposal submission. | |
| 48 | NCCS essentially integrates existing NOC and SOC contracts/execution into a single execution contract. Merging mission critical functions and contracts can result in complexities that need to be carefully addressed. |
Qualified key personnel will significantly reduce DHS' execution risk.
Currently, the Government does not intend to evaluate key personnel as part of the award criteria.
We recommend the Government evaluate key personnel in Factor 3.
Additionally, we recommend adding a Chief Engineer and a Chief Solution Architect to required key personnel to further minimize execution risk.
Due to the constraint of 12 pages for Factor 3 - Staffing and Management, we also recommend that key personnel resumes be excluded from the page limit and be instead be provided as an appendix.
| Will the Government accept these recommendations? | At the IDIQ level, the Program Manager will be the only identified key personnel. They will not be included in the overall evaluation. The positions of Chief Engineer and Chief Solutions Architect may be considered as key personnel at the task order level. | |
| 49 | A primary SOW objective is to, "evolve the DHS HQ NOSC to build a best-in-class service entity that meets DHS Cybersecurity Provider (CSP) Program, industrial, and other doctrinal Center of Excellence service maturity standards." |
Currently, CSP/CSSP accreditation is not included in the evaluation criteria.
Experience supporting CSP/CSSP accreditations improves the Offeror's ability to meet the SOW objective.
We recommend the Government incorporate CSP/CSSP accreditation as an evaluated element in Factor 4. Further, we recommend the Government require DHS-centric CSP/CSSP accreditation experience, as well as experience conducting DHS CSP audit functions to achieve the "highest confidence rating."
| Will the Government accept these recommendations? | The government has considered these recommendations, but will not be incorporating them into the evaluation strategy. | |
| 50 | NCCS is a contract consolidation. Transition is a key component when merging multiple mission-essential contracts into a single execution model. Inadvertent risk can be introduced without a effective transition plan. |
As such, we recommend the Government include transition as a separate and evaluable response criteria in Factor 3.
We also recommend the Government expand the Factor 3 page-count by 1 page to accommodate the inclusion of Transition.
| Will the Government accept these recommendations? | At the IDIQ level, there is not a need to evaluate transition. The transition evaluation will be conducted individually at the task order level. | |
| 51 | We recommend the Government include a section in Factor 3 for risk and risk management to address complexities in the creation and execution of NCCS. |
We also recommend the Government increase the management section page count limit by 1.5 pages to accommodate the inclusion of risk management.
| Will the Government accept these recommendations? | The page limit for Factor 3, Staffing and Management Approach, has been increased to 25 pages. | ||
| 52 | Section M.3.3, Phase III Evaluation, Factor 7 - Price states, "the Government will determine whether the Offeror’s labor categories and labor rates are fair and reasonable." It also states that the Government will evaluate offers by adding the total price of all options to the price for the basic requirement to determine the total evaluated price (TEP). Given that there is no requirement for proposing a level of effort, please elaborate how the Offeror's rate card will be used to calculate the TEP. | The price evaluation will assess accuracy, completeness, and reasonableness. This will be a verification to determine if the information presented is accurate and complete, rates are included for all required labor categories, labor rates are consistent with published price lists, discounts are included, figures are correctly calculated, and rates are presented in the prescribed format. | |
| 53 | Section L.3, pg. 104, states the following: |
"No more than 250 words per question response" "No more than 1 page per reference"
Section L.5.2.1, pg. 109, states the following:
"...Responses to each question shall not exceed two (2) pages in length and each reference information response shall not exceed one (1) page in length."
| Will the Government please confirm that the limit is 2 pages for each question, and 1 page for each reference? | The response to each question shall not exceed 250 words per question. The response for each reference is limited to one page in length. | ||
| 54 | Will the Government confirm that experience presented for Factor 2 is from Prime Offerors only? | The experience presented for Factor 2 shall be from the Prime offeror only. | |
| 55 | Section L.3, pg. 105, states the following: |
"Factor 3 - Staffing and Management Approach: 12 pages (Inclusive of Resumes, Subcontracting Plan, and Teaming Agreements)"
Section L.6.2.1, pg. 114, states the following:
"If a Prime Contractor/Subcontractor arrangement is proposed, the Offeror is to clearly state the Prime Contractor name and ALL Subcontractor name(s). If a Joint Venture Teaming Arrangement or Mentor Protégé Agreement response is proposed, the Offeror is to specifically identify it as such and submit an official Joint Venture Agreement or Mentor Protégé Agreement to DHS as part of its Factor 3: Staffing and Management Approach response. All supporting Teaming Arrangement information submitted as part of a Joint Venture or Mentor Protégé response shall clearly identify and designate all vendors making up the proposed Joint Venture or Mentor Protégé Arrangement and their roles and responsibilities, to include clearly describing the services to be performed by each vendor during Task Order administration, invoicing, and payment of this IDIQ contract."
Will the Government please confirm that Teaming Agreements for a Prime/Subcontractor arrangement are not required as part of the submission? The Teaming Agreement for a Prime/Subcontractor arrangement are required as part of the proposal submission.
| 56 | Since a typical comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) is in excess of 20 pages long, is it the Government's intent that the SBSP be excluded from page count? | The page limit for Factor 3, Staffing and Management Approach, has been increased to 25 pages. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is included in the total page count of 25 pages. |
| 57 | Will DHS allow a 11×17" size page fold-out to be counted as two 8.5×11" pages? | DHS will not allow the use of an 11x17 size fold-out page to be counted as two (2) 8.5 x 11 pages. |
| 58 | Will the Government please confirm that the acronyms and abbreviations list is excluded from the specified page count for each volume? | The Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms and the list of exhibits are excluded from the page limitations in each volume. |
| 59 | The RFP refers to the "Cover Sheet" as having a 2-page limit, and later refers to a "cover letter" required for each volume. |
Will the Government please confirm that "cover sheet" and "cover letter" are synonymous?
| Additionally, will the Government please confirm that the proposal volume cover is excluded from each volumes' page count? | All references to Cover Sheet in the RFP have been changed to Cover Letter. | ||
| 60 | Will the Government please confirm that Phase III - Factor 6 Past Performance project references are not required to be the same as those used in Phase II - Factor 2 Corporate Technical Experience and Reference Checks? | The Phase III Past Performance references are not required to be the same as the references identified in the Phase II Corporate Technical Experience and Reference Check references. | |
| 61 | Will the Government please confirm that "business partners" are defined as: DHS HQ and NCCS subscribers? | Yes, as well as the entities that must be consulted to manage circuit installation and O&M (primarily EIS) and other vendors responsible for Tier 4 troubleshooting (i.e., Azure, AWS). | |
| 62 | B.1 states, "The objective is to establish a single award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)..." and, "...however, the Government reserves the right to award more than one IDIQ if the Government determines it is in its best interest to do so." |
However, the SF449, Section G.4.2 - Task Ordering Procedures, and M.2 - Evaluation process all indicate a single-award IDIQ and the Q&A #14 response provided in RFP Attachment J-8.
| Will the Government please confirm that the intent is to establish a single award IDIQ? | It is the Government's intent to establish a single-award IDIQ contract, however, the Government reserves the right to award more than one IDIQ contract if the Government determiines it is in its best interest to do so. | ||
| 63 | Will the Government please confirm the % Small Business goals are based on anticipated total subcontract dollars to be awarded via task order? | The percentage for the small business goals are based upon total subcontract dollars awarded at the task order level. | |
| 64 | Will the Government please confirm the that Offerors should use the Base Period starting from May 6, 2024 to May 5, 2025, and four (4) subsequent 12-month Optional Ordering Periods, for pricing purposes? | The Base PoP is confirmed as outlined in the solicitation. | |
| 65 | The Staffing Approach in Section L.6.2.1 states the offeror shall discuss, "rationale for the proposed labor mix and the experience, skills, and qualifications of the proposed personnel." Since Offerors are only proposing rates for the labor categories and skills provided in the Attachment J-2 Pricing Schedule, and there isn't a requirement to bid a "proposed labor mix," will the Government remove the requirement for the rationale? | This section has been modified to remove the requirement for the proposed labor mix. The proposed labor mix requirement is more suited for evaluation at the task order level. | |
| 66 | Both the Government Site Rate and Contractor Site Rate tabs of the Attachment J-2 Pricing Schedule include lines for Other Direct Costs, Materials, Travel, and G&A Rate. Because Attachment J-3 lists all labor categories required under the contract and Offerors will be evaluated on the labor rates entered in Attachment J-2 and not on these other cost elements, we respectfully request that these lines (ODC, Material, Travel, and G&A Rate) be removed from the Attachment J-2. | The lines for Travel, ODCs and Materials on each tab in Attachment J-2 have been removed. | |
| 67 | Will the Government please confirm that the Offeror has the ability to utilize the entire Attachment J-2 pricing schedule to determine the labor response for each task order? | The Attachment J-2 will be utilized as part of the price evaluation for the IDIQ award. | |
| 68 | To provide clarity and improve the ability for the Government to differentiate Offerors' responses, will the Government please define the differentiation between junior, mid, and senior positions? | Yes, this has now been included in Attachment J-3. | |
| 69 | Offerors' typically offer discounts at the task order level, but Factor 7 states, "The Government request further discounts from your published price list for the base period of performance and all option periods." |
| Since there is no sample task to which Offerors can apply a discount, will the Government please define what is meant by "further discounts," how these discounts are to be submitted, and how these discounts will be evaluated? | The Government is requesting price discounts for the base period of performance and all option periods. These discounts are to be applied in the pricing worksheet and will be evaluated as part of the best value evaluation. | |
| 70 | Section B.5 states, "The minimum guaranteed award amount is currently an estimate and subject to change prior to the final solicitation release." |
Given that this is the final solicitation release, will the Government please confirm that the minimum is the $10,000 referenced?
B.5 also stated, "The cumulative dollar ceiling value is currently an estimate and subject to change prior to final solicitation release."
| Given that this is the final solicitation release, will the Government please confirm the final not-to-exceed cumulative dollar ceiling value? | The minimum guarantee award amount is $10,000. The Government will not confirm the cumulative dollar ceiling value. | |
| 71 | Section H.17 states, "Long distance and local travel may be required both CONUS and Outside the Contiguous United States (OCONUS)." |
However, based upon the SOW and the solicitation, OCONUS support requiring travel is not anticipated.
| Will the Government please confirm that OCONUS travel is not required? | Currently, the only non-CONUS travel being contemplated in this contract is to the non-contiguous US States (Alaska and Hawai'i) and US Territories (Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands). This requirement will be confirmed before Phase 2 begins. | ||
| 72 | The solicitation document header indicates that this is a draft document; will the Government please confirm this is the final solicitation? | This is the final Solicitation. The Solicitation marked final is attached via Amendment 1. | |
| 73 | FAR 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards (Aug 2018) is marked with an X. | ||
| Given that all the positions required under this solicitation are for professional support and no Wage Determinations were included in the solicitation, will the Government please confirm that this clause is not applicable? | FAR 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards is not required and the X has been removed. | ||
| 74 | Please confirm the Small Business Subcontracting Goal percentages (Section L.6.2.1) are based on total subcontracted dollars. | The Small Business Subcontracting Goal percentages are based on total subcontracted dollars awarded at the task order level. | |
| 75 | The Small Business Subcontract Plan provisions at FAR 19.704 require offerors to address a number of requirements within the Plan and will take approximately 9 pages to address. Will the Government allow submission of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan as an Appendix to Volume III, excluded from the total page count? | The government will not allow the submission of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan as an Appendix to Volume III. The page limit for Factor 3, Staffing and Management Approach, has been increased to 25 pages. | |
| 76 | There are multiple labor categories whose level appears to have been mislabeled in the Govt and Contractor site rate tabs. Will the Government revise the Attachment J-2 Skill Levels as follows?: |
Row 30: Project Manager - Senior to Junior Row 31: Technical Writer - Junior to Senior Row 91: Network Administrator - Senior to Junior Row 157: Web Administrator - Senior to Mid
| Row 158: Web Administrator - Senior to Junior- | See revised Attachment J-2 (Pricing Schedule). | ||
| 77 | Based on Section B.10 and that this is not a GSA Contract, will the Government please incorporate FAR Clause 52.216-4 Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material? | FAR clause 52.216-4 Economic Price Adjustment - Labor and Material does not apply and will not be incorporated. | |
| 78 | This Offeror assumes that all proposed labor rates are to be ceiling rates inclusive of personnel clearance levels of TS/SCI and SAP and locations, i.e. the Washington DC metropolitan area. Is this assumption correct? | The proposed labor rates at the IDIQ level are to be the ceiling rates inclusive of personnel clearance levels of TS/SCI and SAP and locations, to include the Washington DC metropolitan area. The offerors will be required to provide both classified and unclassified labor rates in Attachment J-2. | |
| 79 | The Solicitation states a requirement to "spell out any abbreviations and acronyms used before subsequent use of an abbreviation or acronym within a proposal volume." Will the Government please clarify if this requirement also applies to all Phases and Volumes? Additionally, will the Government please clarify that an acronym may be used in a subsequent Phase within the same Volume without spelling it out again? | Please spell out any abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the document. This applies to all volume submissions. | |
| 80 | Will the Government please allow offerors to include a Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms and List of Exhibits in each volume and confirm that it is excluded from the page limitations? | The Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms and the list of exhibits are excluded from the page limitations in each volume. | |
| 81 | The DD254 states that the Contractor is responsible for handling and marking FOUO information in accordance with DHS Management Directive 11042.1 "Safeguarding Sensitive but Unclassified (For Official Use Only) Information," dated January 6, 2005. It is our understanding that FOUO is now legacy marking, could you please provide CUI guidance for this solicitation. | Although DHS just recently implemented the use of CUI, PSD ISP and other offices are still using FOUO. We will continue to use FOUO until updated guidance is provided by HQ ISP Policy/Operations. | |
| 82 | Answer to question #2 states: "Past performance is acceptable from a sub-contractor team member." Section L.6.2.4 Factor 6 - Past Performance does not incorporate this, will the Government please revise Section L.6.2.4 to include that Past Performance of a first-tier subcontractor acting as a prime is acceptable? | Past Performance references shall be as a prime contractor or first-tier subcontractor. | |
| 83 | Answer to question 43 states: "Offerors may cite experience above and beyond the experience related to the three projects for which referenced information will be provided." Will cited experience beyond the three projects be evaluated as a part of the confidence rating for Factor 2? If so, request the Government update RFP Section L.5.2.1 to clarify how additional citations (or lack thereof) may impact an offerors confidence rating. | Cited experience above and beyond the experience related to the three projects will lend itself to be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation instructions as either High Confidence, Some Confidence, or Low Confidence. | |
| 84 | Submission instructions for Form 11000-6 do not appear to be discussed in any attachments. Request the Government provide instructions on Form 11000-6 submission. | The form 11000-6 is not required at the IDIQ level. This form is used at the task order level as part of the non-disclosure agreement (NDA). | |
| 85 | Please confirm the Reading Room will include but is not limited to; |
- Current NOC and SOC Service Catalogs
- Communications Plans
- Current NOSC Tier escalation protocols
- Historical quantities of yearly data calls and number of devices and incidents/tickets supported by the current NOC and SOC contracts
| These documents, at a minimum, ensure that all Offerors (similar to the Incumbents) have access to necessary information to incorporate into their Phases II and III submissions. | Yes, this is correct. This and other relevant information relating, e.g., to number of devices per location, types of devices, qualification of current outage types, etc, will be provided. Information regarding the number and location of sites for field support will also be included. | ||
| 86 | Section 4.1. Key Personnel states that the Program Manager shall have a PMP or NDU PM Level 3 or DAWIA Level 3 certification in addition to a CISSP. Attachment J-1 Labor Category Descriptions does not include the requirement for a PMP or equivalent certification. Would the Government please provide an updated Attachment J-1 Program Manager Labor Category description to match the SOW Section 4.1 Key Personnel Program Manager's certification requirements? | Yes, this section has been amended to remove the PMP requirement. | |
| 87 | The solicitation header states "Draft" as well as language in Section B.5 that indicates change "prior to final solicitation release". Additionally, Attachment J-4 Form DD254 is titled as a Draft. Will the Government please update the text to reflect the document as Final? | The word "Draft" has been removed from solicitation header. The Draft DD254 is in its correct form. A final DD254 will not be issued until after award. | |
| 88 | Please confirm that password-protecting proposal files containing CUI content (e.g., resumes and DCMA letters) is acceptable for the secure electronic submission of files via email to the Government. | Any documents transmitted within DHS does not need to be password protected. However, if industry determines the need to password protect a document, it will be accepted. Most documents wouldn’t need to be password protected unless it contained PII. | |
| 89 | Will the Government please confirm that DHS Components beyond DHS HQ OCIO, FLETC, and CBP are able to place orders against the NCCS vehicle?" | Other DHS components may be able to obtain a waiver to place orders against this vehicle. | |
| 90 | Please confirm that $594,300,044 is the cumulative dollar ceiling value for the final solicitation release. | The Government will not be providing the cumulative ceiling value. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .