0004 Questions - RFP 70Z04424RESDIAB01_06-03-2024.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 53 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70Z04424RESDIAB01
About this file
This document is a Combined Synopsis/Solicitation for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for Information Assurance (IA) Risk Management Framework (RMF) Support Services for the U.S. Coast Guard. The IDIQ will have a 5-year ordering period and will be a 100% competitive 8(a) set-aside with a NAICS code of 541519 (Other Computer Related Services) and a $34M size standard.
The solicitation requires the contractor to provide ISSO, ISSE, SCA and Cybersecurity Compliance and Readiness services to support the U.S. Coast Guard Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber and Intelligence Service Center (C5ISC). Offerors must submit proposals in two phases, with the first phase due on May 8, 2024. The solicitation has several key requirements, including experience with DoD or USCG systems, CMMI Level 3 certification, and facility clearances. Pricing will be evaluated separately in phase two. This is a new requirement, so there is no incumbent contractor.
View the file
Other files
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
Industry Questions
| Information Assurance (IA) Risk Management Framework (RMF) Support Services | ||||||
| RFP 70Z04424RESDIAB01 | ||||||
| RFP Amendment 0004 - Government Responses to Vendor Questions | ||||||
| Question # | RFP Doc | Page No. | Section | Paragraph | Question/ Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 31 | Section E | h) 2 | Could you please answer this quick question, "Are all the team members of a teaming arrangement required to have CMMI Maturity level 3 at individual level or any one member from the team should have it to qualify for this opportunity"? | The Government has reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised copy of the RFP document released with Amendment 0002. |
| 2 | General | N/A | N/A | N/A | We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. |
| If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number? | This is a new requirement aligned to formation of the U.S. Coast Guard Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber and Intelligence Service Center (C5ISC). Therefore historical information of the full scope of this requirement is unavailable. | ||||||
| 3 | General | N/A | N/A | N/A | Does the stipulation for achieving at least 'Maturity Level 3' in the CMMI appraisal apply to all members of a Joint Venture, or is it sufficient for one member to have attained this level? | The Government has reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |
| 4 | General | N/A | N/A | N/A | Please clarify whether a Joint Venture with a Teaming Partner falls under the definition of a 'Teaming arrangement' for the purpose of evaluating CMMI appraisals, as outlined in the requirement? | The Government has reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |
| 5 | General | N/A | N/A | N/A | Since this solicitation is for Cyber Security Support Services, is ISO 27001 not more applicable then CMMI? | The Government reviewed and considered this recommendation and will not change the requirement. | |
| 6 | General | N/A | N/A | N/A | Will the government consider requiring a Top Secret Facility Clearance? | The Government reviewed this question and determined that the Facility Clearance requirement remains valid as written in the RFP. | |
| 7 | RFP | 31 | h.2 | 2 | The requirement for CMMI was not identified in the draft RFP and now denies the ability for many 8a companies with strong RMF and software factory ongoing authorization capability to be able to respond to this solicitation. Will the government consider removing the CMMI requirement completely as it denies the ability for many capable 8a companies from submitting? | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |
| 8 | RFP | 27 | E | c)1) | Would the USG consider CMMI Maturity Level 2; Few 8a companies will have Level 3 thus retricting competition | The Government reviewed this question and determined that the CMMI requirement as written in the RFP remains valid. | |
| 9 | RFP | 31 | 5 | h)2. | Would the USG consider CMMI Maturity Level 2; Few 8a companies will have Level 3 thus retricting competition | The Government reviewed this question and determined that the CMMI requirement as written in the RFP remains valid. | |
| 10 | RFP | 31 | 5 | h) 1 and 2 | Being this is requirement is set aside for 8a small businesses, will the government consider relaxing the “Pass/Fail” requirement for proposal evaluation. | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |
| 11 | RFP | 32 | 5 | h) 5 | Also, will the government consider changing the past performance recency requirement from three to five years. | The Government reviewed this question and determined that the Past Performance recency requirement as written in the RFP remains valid. | |
| 12 | RFP | 32 | 5 | 3 | Would the Government consider extending the past performance window from three years of relevant experience to 5 years? | The Government reviewed this question and determined that the Past Performance recency requirement as written in the RFP remains valid. | |
| 13 | COMBINED SYNOPSIS / SOLICITATION | 31 | Section E | H.2. | Question: We respectfully suggest that the government remove the requirement for a successful CMMI appraisal as a pass/fail element of the evaluation criteria. While a successful CMMI appraisal demonstrates a level of process maturity, it is not a certification of quality or of proven past performance and unduly restricts the participation of small businesses in competition. | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |
| 14 | COMBINED SYNOPSIS / SOLICITATION | 31 | Section E | H.2. | Question: Can the government confirm that the prime contractor is required to possess a CMMI-DEV ML3 or CMMI-SVC ML3 appraisal, but subcontractors are not required to have undergone a successful appraisal? Limiting subcontractors to CMMI ML3 appraised firms restricts the participation of small businesses bringing innovative solutions and may unduly restrict competition. | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. Subcontractors are not required to possess a CMMI appraisal. | |
| 15 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 27 | Addendum to FAR Provision 52.212- |
c) Instructions to Offerors 1) Text: Volume cover pages and tables of contents are not required. All other information provided, including tables and graphs, will be included in the page count of the respective volume.
| Question: If the Offeror does provide either a cover page and/or table of contents, will these items be included in the Government-required page limitation for each respective volume? | If a volume-specific cover page and/or table of contents are provided, they will be included in the stated volume page count limitation. | |||
| 16 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 29 | Addendum to FAR Provision 52.212- |
c) Instructions to Offerors
5) VOLUMES I – X
Phase One
ii. Volume II – Prior Experience (Page limit 6 pages) 3rd paragraph Text: Each example of demonstrated experience …. contract/task order number (only one contract/task number per example)
| Question: Is it permissible for Offerors to use an overarching IDIQ or BPA as a single contract reference? | Use of an IDIQ or BPA as a prior experience example may be acceptable if, in accordance with the RFP, the example includes "a concise description of the services provided" and the information is "sufficiently detailed so that the Government can determine whether the examples demonstrate the Offeror's experience." This would require explanation within the example of the particular IDIQ orders or BPA calls (including the order/call numbers) performed under the overarching IDIQ or BPA, since an IDIQ Scope of Work and BPA enumerate possible work that is only actually performed under an associated IDIQ order or BPA call. | |||
| 17 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 31 | FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation |
h) PHASE TWO:
2. CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION (CMMI) DEVELOPMENT (DEV) OR SERVICES (SVC) – MATURITY LEVEL 3 1st paragraph Text: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s CMMI V2.0 appraisal Final Findings Briefing/Report to ensure the Prime Contractor, or all members of a Teaming arrangement or Joint Venture (as appropriate) …
Question: The word "or" in this placement is confusing as to which members of an offering team are required to have CMMI Level 3 appraisal. Please confirm that only the Prime Contractor/ offeror is required to hold the CMMI Level 3 appraisal, when the offering team is comprised of a Prime Contractor and a subcontractor (not a JV relationship).
| A requirement for all subcontractors to have CMMI Level 3 appraisal would be unduly restrictive for an 8(a) set-aside acquisition otherwise, and could become subject to protest, since the CMMI Level 3-appraised Prime contractor is responsible for the performance and management of the team. | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |||
| 18 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 31 | FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation |
h) PHASE TWO:
2. CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION (CMMI) DEVELOPMENT (DEV) OR SERVICES (SVC) – MATURITY LEVEL 3 1st paragraph Text: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s CMMI V2.0 appraisal Final Findings Briefing/Report to ensure the Prime Contractor, or all members of a Teaming arrangement or Joint Venture (as appropriate) …
| Question: If subcontractors of an offering team (not a JV relationship) are required to be appraised at CMMI Level 3, will the government accept equivalent model-based process maturity appraisals performed within the past 24 months in lieu of CMMI Level 3? | The Government has reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised copy of the RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |||
| 19 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 31 | FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation |
h) PHASE TWO:
2. CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION (CMMI) DEVELOPMENT (DEV) OR SERVICES (SVC) – MATURITY LEVEL 3 1st paragraph Text: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s CMMI V2.0 appraisal Final Findings Briefing/Report to ensure the Prime Contractor, or all members of a Teaming arrangement or Joint Venture (as appropriate) …
| Question: If subcontractors of an offering team (not a JV relationship) are required to be appraised at CMMI Level 3, will the government extend the time of appraisal to during contract transition or prior to contract award? | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |||
| 20 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 32 | FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation |
h) PHASE TWO:
| 5. FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE | 1st paragraph | Do the contracts used for the Past Performance Questionnaires in Phase Two, Factor 4: Past Performance need to be the same contracts used for Factor 1: Prior Experience in Phase One? | The same contracts are not required to be used for both Factor 1: Prior Experience and Factor 4: Past Performance. | ||||
| 21 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | Withdrawn. | n/a | |
| 22 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 30 | 5 VOLUMES I - X | 1. FACTOR 1: PRIOR EXPERIENCE - Questions 1-3 | Since USCG is a law enforcement agency within DHS, is prior experience within DHS acceptable if it is not specifically with USCG? | Examples of Prior Experience (Factor 1) must be in accordance with the requirements stated in the RFP Instructions to Offeror's, Addendum to FAR Provision 52.212-1, section c.5.ii, page 29 and will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Provision 52.212-2, section g.1, pages 30-31. | |
| 23 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 30 | 5 VOLUMES I - X | 1. FACTOR 1: PRIOR EXPERIENCE - Question 1-4 | Is there a requirement on the number of prior experience examples that need to be provided by the prime vendor? | There is no minimum or maximum limit to the number of Prior Experience examples, the only constraint is the stated volume page limit. | |
| 24 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 30 | 5 VOLUMES I - X | 1. FACTOR 1: PRIOR EXPERIENCE - Question 1-4 | If a Prior Experience is within the 3 year window during Phase One but expires prior to Phase 2, can it still be used based on the solicitation date of issue of 16 April ? | For the purposes of Prior Experience (Factor 1) recency, examples within 3 years of the original (Phase 1) RFP release date of 16 April 2024 will meet the recency requirement. | |
| 25 | 70Z04424RESDIAB01 | 31 | 5 | h.2 | Specifically, we seek clarification and respectfully challenge the requirement for a Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 certification for all members of a joint venture or Prime and subcontractor team. |
As stated in the RFP, the requirement for a verifiable CMMI V2.0 appraisal at Maturity Level 3 to be eligible for award appears to restrict competition and may not accurately reflect the necessary qualifications for performing the required services. We believe that this requirement could inadvertently exclude highly qualified companies that possess the requisite security certifications and clearances critical for this contract but do not hold a CMMI certification.
CMMI, while a valuable standard for process improvement, does not directly correlate to the performance of tasks requiring specific security clearances and handling of classified information. A more relevant requirement might focus on Facility Clearance Level (FCL) or similar standards that directly relate to the ability to handle classified information and perform on contracts requiring high levels of security compliance. As noted in the RFP, the prime or its subcontractors must have an FCL and we would encourage the government to consider the same applies to CMMI Furthermore, like CIO-SP4, historical precedent from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has shown challenges to similar standards that restrict competition without a clear and direct connection to the performance of the contract requirements. For instance, GAO B-408685, a protest decision involving the application of overly restrictive requirements, highlighted the need for requirements to be material to the needs of the government.
We truly appreciate the government’s efforts to ensure high standards of quality and performance through the CMMI certification requirement. However, we seek clarification and suggest a revision of this requirement based on its potential to restrict competition and limit participation from otherwise qualified small businesses that can meet government needs through joint ventures.
Joint ventures are a critical mechanism for small businesses to comply with government contracting requirements, share resources, and enhance their capabilities. As per 13 CFR 121.103(h), which governs affiliations between firms, joint ventures allow small businesses to pool their efforts without being considered affiliates in terms of size standards. Furthermore, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at 52.219-9(d)(11) encourages the use of joint ventures or teaming arrangements to meet subcontracting goals, thereby supporting the government's interest in promoting small business participation.
Given the intent of these regulations to support small business participation in federal contracts, it is critical to ensure that requirements such as the CMMI certification do not inadvertently preclude capable small businesses from competing. Requiring each member of a joint venture to hold CMMI Level 3 certification may not be necessary for the effective execution of the contract and may limit the pool of potential small business partners that do not yet hold but are capable of achieving such standards with the support of a joint venture.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the contracting office revise the CMMI requirement to allow for the prime contractor or a significant member of the joint venture to hold the necessary CMMI certification, rather than all members. This adjustment would align more closely with the federal government's policies supporting small business participation and joint venture arrangements.
| We are committed to providing the highest quality services and believe that revising the stated CMMI requirement will encourage robust competition and enable the government to benefit from a wider range of innovative solutions and capabilities offered by a diverse pool of vendors, including small businesses. | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | ||||||
| 26 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 29 | VOLUMES I – X | Volume II – Prior Experience | What is the minimum number of prior experience examples required for Phase I submission? | There is no minimum or maximum limit to the number of Prior Experience examples, the only constraint is the page limit. | |
| 27 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 29 | VOLUMES I – X | Volume II – Prior Experience | May we use subcontractor prior experience in our Phase I response? If so, how many? | Subcontractor Prior Experience examples may be used in Volume II - Prior Experience as long as the examples include "a concise description of the services provided" and the information is "sufficiently detailed that the Government can determine whether the examples demonstrate the Offeror's experience." | |
| 28 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 31 | h) PHASE TWO: | 2 | Regarding CMMI V2.0 Appraisal. |
Per our understanding CMMI services is more related to software development processes, whereas ISO / IEC 27001 is more in alignment with Cybersecurity IA RMF Services.
It seems that a mandatory requirement for CMMI – DEV – SVC does not correlate with the requirement.
Can you consider ISO / IEC 27001 as an alternate mandatory requirement?
Alternatively, if this is not possible. . .
Can you consider waiving the below requirement and allow for the Prime Contractor and / or a member of the team be allowed to satisfy the requirement?
| “Prime Contractor, or all members of a Teaming arrangement have completed a successful CMMI Development (CMMI-DEV) or CMMI Services (CMMI-SVC) appraisal and achieved at least “Maturity Level 3” | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | ||||||
| 29 | - | - | - | - | Is there an incumbent on this contract? If so, please provide the incumbent name, current contract number, Period of performance, and value of the contract. | This is a new requirement aligned to formation of the U.S. Coast Guard Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber and Intelligence Service Center (C5ISC). Therefore historical information of the full scope of this requirement is unavailable. | |
| 30 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 31 | h) PHASE TWO: | 5 | We have CPARS reports with the feedback included from various Federal level clients for whom we have provided similar services. Can we provide those relevant CPARS reports in lieu of the PPQs? | Instructions to Offerors for the Phase 2 proposal volumes will be provided at the beginning of Phase 2 and require submission of PPQs. | |
| 31 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024.pdf | 27 and 31 | E. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS | Instructions to Offerors | Please confirm if the Prime company holds the Facility clearance, should also hold the CMMI certification as well. Is it fine if one of the teaming partner companies has the CMMI Maturity Level 3 certification. | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |
| 32 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 29 | 5.ii | 1 | What is the government’s justification for the significant changes in the Phase 1, Volume II prior experience requirements? We believe the level of specificity precludes relevant past performances that align with requirements captured in the statement of work, and will limit otherwise qualified vendors from submitting a compliant response. |
| Additional language if needed- For example, one of the past performance requirements in the final release is, “experience supporting continuous authorization during the software engineering process in a DoD or DHS Software Factory.” While software factory is defined within the statement of work, there are no support requirements captured within the scope or the defined tasks (1.2.1- 1.2.4.6). | The Government reviewed and considered this recommendation.. This requirement will remain as stated in the RFP. The required functions detailed in the IDIQ Scope of Work encompass all of the work that will be required to support a software factory. | ||||||
| 33 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 31 | 5.h.2 | 2 | Could the government please consider adding ISO 27001 and 20000 certifications alongside CMMI Level III for this RFP, as we believe they better align with the scope? | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |
| 34 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 29 | 5.ii | 1 | |||
| Could the Government please consider increasing the page count for Factor 1 - Prior experience from 6 to 8 pages to enable offerors articulate the relevancy more effectively? | The Government reviewed and considered this recommendation, the page count will stand as stated in the RFP. | ||||||
| 35 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 27 | c.1 | 2 | Can the Government please allow offerors inlcude table of contents and cover page for each volume? | If a volume-specific cover page and/or table of contents are provided, they will be included in the stated volume page count limitation. | |
| 36 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 27 | c.1 | 2 | Can the Government please move Volume V and VI requirements to be included within Phase I? We believe this adjustment would greatly facilitate the evaluation process and align with a phased approach, ultimately streamlining the overall procedure. | The Government reviewed and considered this recommendation. The instructions will stand as stated in the RFP. | |
| 37 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 26 | b.4 | 6 | Will there be an additional Q&A session after Phase II instructions are released? If not, we kindly request the Government to organize one to address any inquiries offerors might have. | Yes, there is a planned period for submission of vendor questions at the beginning of Phase 2 of the solicitation process. | |
| 38 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 31 | h.3 | 4 | What are the current technical tools and platforms used in providing Information Assurance (IA) Risk Management Framework (RMF) | ||
| support services, and how are they integrated? | More details provided at the initial Task Order, upon release of phase 2 of the Solicitation and at subsequent Task Orders following award of the IDIQ. | ||||||
| 39 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 29 | 5.ii | 1 | Per draft RFP, Factor 1: Prior Experience, "Government is more interested in the similarity of the prior experience examples to the IDIQ Scope of Work than the quantity of examples" |
| However in released RFP, Government restricted prior-experience only from DoD or USCG. We would like to request Government to remove that restriction and allow offerors to submit examples that are similar to USCG. | The Government reviewed and considered this recommendation, but determined not to make any changes. | |||||
| 40 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 31 | h.2 | 2 | ||
| Could the government provide clarification on whether offerors are required to have CMMI V2.0 certification at Level 3? Additionally, if the prime contractor holds CMMI Level 3 certification but not all partners do, would that meet the requirement? | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |||||
| 41 | RFP | 31 | E. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS, Evaluation | h.2. | In order to maximize the benefit the Government will realize by partnering with a CMMI-appraised Offeror, we recommend the Government require the Offeror to have at least one CMMI appraised program/project listed in the Final Findings Briefing/Report, rather than a non-project based appraisal of a corporate business unit, such as recruiting or accounting. As such we recommend the Government amend the RFP language as follows:" |
| "The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s CMMI V2.0 appraisal Final Findings Briefing/Report to ensure the Prime Contractor, or all members of a Teaming arrangement or Joint Venture (as appropriate), have completed a successful CMMI Development (CMMI-DEV) or CMMI Services (CMMI-SVC) appraisal and achieved at least “Maturity Level 3 on at least one referenceable program/project.” | The Government reviewed and considered this recommendation. The instructions will stand as stated in the RFP. | |||||
| 42 | RFP | 29 | E. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS, Instructions to Offerors | c.5.ii. | The RFP states: "The Offeror shall submit examples of prior experience for contracts that are ongoing or completed with the past three (3) years from the date of the solicitation." |
| Given the diversity and specialized nature of the four new evaluation areas where an Offeror much demonstrate prior experience, will the Government please change the recency requirement from three (3) years to five (5) years? | The Government reviewed and considered this recommendation. The instructions will stand as stated in the RFP. | |||||
| 43 | RFP | 30 | E. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS, Evaluation | f) | The RFP states: "Factors 1-4 will receive confidence ratings." |
| Will the Government please provide the confidence ratings and definitions? | The Government has reviewed and considered this request, however further details will not be provided. | ||||||
| 44 | RFP | 29 | 5) Volumes I-X | Could the Government provide more details around the number of/mix of expected projects that are IT, OT, software factory cATO, and CDS that we will be expected to support per year? | More detailes provided at the initial Task Order, upon release of phase 2 of the Solicitation and at subsequent Task Orders following award of the IDIQ. | ||
| 45 | RFP | 29 | 5) Volumes I-X | Is the Software Factory currently operational? Does the USCG require ISSE services in design and implementation of this capability? | The USCG software factory is currently in development. Any required ISSE services for the software factory will be detailed at an individual Task Order level, as required. | ||
| 46 | RFP | 31 | E. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS, Evaluation | h.2. | The RFP states: "The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s CMMI V2.0 appraisal Final Findings Briefing/Report to ensure the Prime Contractor, or all members of a Teaming arrangement or Joint Venture (as appropriate), have completed a successful CMMI Development (CMMI-DEV) or CMMI Services (CMMI-SVC) appraisal and achieved at least “Maturity Level 3." |
| Regardless of the type of Joint Venture (JV), i.e. Mentor-Protege (MPJV) or non-MPJV, in order to maximize the benefits to the Government, we recommend the Government clarify that both JV partners must individually meet the CMMI requirement. | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |||||
| 47 | RFP | E. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS, Instructions to Offerors | c) 1) | The solicitation states "Volume cover pages and tables of contents are not required." Could the Government please clarify if we are allowed to include a cover page and/or a table of contents, and that these will not count against the page count? | If a volume-specific cover page and/or table of contents are provided, they will be included in the stated volume page count limitation. | |
| 48 | RFP | E. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS, Instructions to Offerors | c) 2) and 3) | The solicitation states "Proposal Volumes I and II shall be submitted with Phase One proposal submission." and "Phase One: An email version of the offeror’s proposal is required that includes Volumes I and II." |
| Could the Government please clarify whether they are requiring one Phase One Proposal document that includes both Volumes I and II, or two separate documents (i.e., 1 for each Volume)? | Each volume must be a separate document file. | ||||||
| 49 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation | 31 | Solicitation Provisions | 5(h)(2) | Page 31, Section h) PHASE TWO: 2. CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION (CMMI) DEVELOPMENT (DEV) OR SERVICES (SVC) – MATURITY LEVEL 3, states that, "The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s CMMI V2.0 appraisal Final Findings Briefing/Report to ensure the Prime Contractor, or all members of a Teaming arrangement or Joint Venture (as appropriate), have completed a successful CMMI Development (CMMI-DEV) or CMMI Services (CMMI-SVC) appraisal and achieved at least ‘Maturity Level 3.’” Can the Government please confirm that an SBA approved Mentor Protege Program Joint Venture (MPP JV) is considered a "Prime Contractor", as opposed to other forms of teaming arrangements, and therefore, the past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications of the joint venture members will be evaluated in the aggregate (13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e))? | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |
| 50 | RFP | 31 | 4) PHASE TWO | 2. CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION (CMMI) DEVELOPMENT (DEV) OR SERVICES (SVC) – MATURITY LEVEL 3 | This question/comment is in reference to the following statement, “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s CMMI V2.0 appraisal Final Findings Briefing/Report to ensure the Prime Contractor, or all members of a Teaming arrangement or Joint Venture (as appropriate), have completed a successful CMMI Development (CMMI-DEV) or CMMI Services (CMMI-SVC) appraisal and achieved at least ‘Maturity Level 3.’ If the Offeror does not possess a verifiable CMMI-DEV or CMMI-SVC appraisal at Maturity Level 3 at the time of proposal submission, the Offeror will be ineligible for award and Factors 2 through 5 will not be evaluated” (RFP, page 31). Our recommendation is that the Government revise the verbiage pertaining to Joint Ventures. Rationale: According to the Federal Register, a ruling by the Small Business Administration (SBA) “clarified other related regulatory provisions to eliminate confusion among small businesses and procuring activities.” The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically 13 CFR 125.8(e), which is applicable to participants of the SBA’s Mentor-Protégé program (MPP), states the following: "When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously.” To be in alignment with the SBA’s ruling, we suggest the Government modify the verbiage as follows: “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s CMMI V2.0 appraisal Final Findings Briefing/Report to ensure the Prime Contractor, all members of a Teaming arrangement or Joint Venture, or a partner of an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture (as appropriate), has/have completed a successful CMMI Development (CMMI-DEV) or CMMI Services (CMMI-SVC) appraisal and achieved at least ‘Maturity Level 3.’" | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |
| 51 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 9 | C. Contract Clauses | N/A | In reference to the absence of the Limitation of Future Contracting clause (HSAR 3052.209-73) that previously existed in the RMF Draft RFP, will the government please confirm that there are no restrictions on a company performing awarded prime work on BOTH the Coast Guard RMF IDIQ (i.e. IA) and the planned successor contract for the APLES II software development program (i.e., COMPASS). If restrictions exist, please clarify their nature and extent. | The referenced clause does not apply to this contract. Any potential future conflicts of interest that may arise between this contract and another contract will need to be evaluated on a case by case basis as they arise. | |
| 52 | RFP | 27 | c) | 1) | The government indicates in c) Instructions to Offerors 1) that "No reduction in font or print size is permitted except for organizational charts or other graphic illustrations." Will the government confirm that the unevaluated text in headers/footers (i.e., RFP Name, RFP Number, Volume Title, Due Date, Disclosure Statement, etc.) may be smaller than Times New Roman 12, but no less than 8-point font? | Since the header/footer text will not be evaluated, it may be of a smaller font size, but not less than Times New Roman 8-point font. | |
| 53 | RFP and SOW | RFP 29 and SOW 25/26 | ii. | 2 | The government's RFP requires Offerors to provide "(2) experience supporting DoD or USCG Operational Technology" and subsequently provides the following definition of Operational Technology in its SOW: "Programmable systems or devices that interact with the physical environment (or manage devices that interact with the physical environment). These systems/devices detect or cause a direct change through the monitoring and/or control of devices, | ||
| processes, and events. Examples include shipboard and shore-based command and control systems, building management systems, fire control systems, radios, and physical access control mechanisms." Would the Coast Guard please clarify the type of support experience that the Coast Guard is most looking for bidders to provide regarding Operational Technology. Is the support systems engineering, systems O&M, Cyber Security services related to the OT equipment and systems, ATO related support, other? | This contract is focused on performing the RMF services of ISSO, ISSE, SCA and Cybersecurity Compliance and Readiness Services functions, as described in the IDIQ Scope of Work, and your Prior Experience should be focused in these areas. | ||||||
| 54 | IA-RMF RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01 | 32 | 6 | FACTOR 5: PRICE | In the Phase 2 pricing instructions, will the Government provide the historical level of effort by labor category for the C5ISC Task Order? This will allow the Government to evaluate all Offeror's evaluated prices equally based on their TO bid rates. | The first Task Order Performance Work Statement, a detailed list of supported systems and the Price Schedule will be released at the beginning of Phase 2. There is no applicable historical information due to the performance-based nature of the first task order work statement. | |
| 55 | IA-RMF RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01 | 30 | FAR Provision 52.212-2 | (b)The Government will only evaluate the IDIQ maximum labor rates to determine that they are fair and |
reasonable. If they are not fair and reasonable, the Phase Two proposal (Factors 2-4) will not be
| evaluated further and the Offeror will not be eligible for award | How will the Government evaluate for fair and reasonableness? | Fair and reasonable price determination will be made in accordance with the methods described at FAR 15.404-1(b). | |||||
| 56 | IA-RMF RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01 | 27 | E. Solicitation Provisions | c. Instructions to Offerors | Will the Government release Attachment 3 - Price Schedule along with the C5ISC Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS) prior to down select notification so that Offerors have additional time to prepare for Phase 2 submissions? | Those documents will be released when the Phase 2 proposal instructions are released, after Phase 1 advisory downselect notifications are made. | |
| 57 | RFP Attachment 1 - IA RMF IDIQ Statement of Work | 18 | 3.4 | 3.4 | Will remote work be allowed on this program and, if so, at what levels? | The on-site versus remote/telework requirements will be specified at the individual Task Order level. Most of the unclassified work is anticipated to allow for some level of telework or remote work. | |
| 58 | RFP | 29 | E. Solicitation Provisions | c. Instructions to Offerors |
(5) Volumes I-X
| ii. Volume II - Prior Experience | The current recency requirement of 3 years for prior experience and past performance experience is too restrictive and limiting to competition given the impact that COVID 19 had upon 8(a) small business Government contractors throughout the past three years as evidenced by the one-year extension granted by the SBA to 8(a) program members in 2021. We respectfully request the US Coast Guard extend the recency requirements for prior experience and past performance experience to 5 years. Extending the prior experience and past performance recency requirements to 5 years would benefit the Coast Guard by increasing competition with qualified and proven vendors. In addition, increasing the prior and past performance experience references recency requirement to 5 years aligns with the 5-year task order ordering period for which the USCG is seeking to establish under this contract. | We reviewed and considered this recommendation. The instructions will stand as stated in the RFP. | |||
| 59 | RFP | 29 | E. Solicitation Provisions | c. Instructions to Offerors |
(5) Volumes I-X
| ii. Volume II - Prior Experience | Regarding the Phase 1 requirement to provide "Experience supporting DoD or USCG Cross Domain Solution", since the Coast Guard is a non-DoD Agency under DHS and cross domain requirements are not unique to DoD, would the Coast Guard please consider permitting non-DoD Agency cross domain solution experience? | CG Cybersecurity is governed by DoD policy which is the standard the CG is required to follow. No changes will be made to the RFP. | |||
| 60 | RFP | 29 | E. Solicitation Provisions | c. Instructions to Offerors |
(5) Volumes I-X
| ii. Volume II - Prior Experience | Regarding the Phase 1 requirement to provide "Experience supporting DoD or USCG Cross Domain Solution", would the Coast Guard please confirm that cross domain solutions and devices are between classified and unclassified security domains? If that is the case, which systems and devices would be considered part of these requirements? | Cross Domain Solutions refer to moving data between two dissimilar networks of differing classifications. A system or systems that perform this function is a Cross Domain Solution. | |||
| 61 | RFP | 29 | E. Solicitation Provisions | c. Instructions to Offerors |
(5) Volumes I-X
| ii. Volume II - Prior Experience | Regarding the Phase 1 requirement to provide "Experience supporting DoD or USCG Cross Domain Solution", the PWS presents three lettered statements in the last section of the Scope area (1.2) under Cross Domain. Is the Phase 1 requirement requesting bidders to provide experience with these three specific analysis and evaluation aspects of Cross Domain? | The Government is interested in the offeror's prior experience performing the ISSO, ISSE, SCA and Cybersecurity Compliance and Readiness Services functions described in the IDIQ Scope of Work to support a DoD or USCG Cross-domain solution. | |||
| 62 | RFP | 29 | E. Solicitation Provisions | c. Instructions to Offerors |
(5) Volumes I-X
| ii. Volume II - Prior Experience | Regarding the Phase 1 requirement to provide "Experience implementing and using automated governance, risk, and compliance tools, which led to a more efficient assessment and authorization process', would the Government please provide a list of the specific automated governance, risk, and compliance tools that are currently being used by the Coast Guard? | Specific tools utilized by the CG will be detailed at the Task Order level. Offeror Prior Experience in this area is not required to be with any specific tool - the Government is interested in the Offeror's prior experience "implementing and using" any such "automated governance, risk, and compliance tools" and how it led to "a more efficient assessment and authorization process." | |||||
| 63 | RFP | 30 | E. Solicitation Provisions | f) Factors 1-4 will receive confidence ratings | Regarding "f) Factors 1-4 will receive confidence ratings", would the Coast Guard please provide the actual confidence ratings scale (i.e., High/Some/Low Confidence) that the Coast Guard will use and how the Coast Guard will determine specific confidence ratings for Phase 1 responses? | FAR Provision 52.212-2 (RFP pages 29 - 32) describes the Government's evaluation process for this requirement. | |
| 64 | RFP | 31 | E. Solicitation Provisions | f) Factors 1-4 will receive confidence ratings | Regarding "f) Factors 1-4 will receive confidence ratings", would the Coast Guard please let bidders know the Phase 1 confidence rating (i.e., High/Some/Low Confidence) needed to be achieved in order to receive a positive recommendation from the Government to proceed to Phase 2 and pursue submitting a Phase 2 response? | FAR Provision 52.212-2 (RFP pages 29 - 32) describes the Government's evaluation process for this requirement. | |
| 65 | RFP | 31 | E. Solicitation Provisions | c. Instructions to Offerors |
(5) Volumes I-X
| ii. Volume II - Prior Experience | Regarding "(4) Experience supporting continuous authorization during the software engineering process in a DoD or DHS Software Factory", Would the Government please clarify the Continuous Authorization requirement in relation to the software engineering process? Is the Coast Guard requesting bidders to present their experience implementing security requirements into software engineering methodologies? If so, recommend that the Coast Guard change this requirement to this specific language. | The Government is interested in the Offeror's prior experience performing the ISSO, ISSE, SCA and Cybersecurity Compliance and Readiness Services functions described in the IDIQ Scope of Work to support a system or systems that are under a Continuous Authorization and developed/maintained within a DoD or DHS Software Factory. | |||||
| 66 | Attachment 1 to RFP 70Z04424RESDIAB01 | 25 | Attachment 1 to RFP 70Z04424RESDIAB01 | Software Factory | Regarding "Software Factory - A DevSecOps platform (automating development, security and production) operating in an Enterprise Data Center (cloud or on premise)…." Considering that there are few examples of DoD or DHS Software Factories that are operating in an Enterprise Data Center, recommend that in the interest of increasing competition, the Enterprise Data Center be removed from this definition in order to permit Phase 1 Software Factory experience responses to include Software Factories that are not operated in an Enterprise Data Center. | An "enterprise data center" means that the federal organization or component authorizes and recognizes the data center to host their software factory. The "Software Factory" definition in "RFP Attachment 1 - IA RMF IDIQ Scope of Work" (pg. 25) has been revised to remove capitalization of "Enterprise Data Center." | |
| 67 | RFP | 31 | E. Solicitation Provisions | h) PHASE TWO | |||
| 3. Factor 2: Technical Approach | Regarding "(a) The Offeror's proposed labor mix (Labor Categories and hours) and utilization plan (role, assignments responsibilities and organization of personnel) to accomplish the full scope of the Task Order work statement", would the Coast Guard please provide a list of all of the systems including their size, cross domain requirements, and status in terms of Continuous Authorization or Three Year ATO? For systems on Three Year ATO, recommend that the Coast Guard provide the renewal dates for these systems? Additionally, can the government provide a historical LOE to support this effort? | This recommendation was reviewed and considered. Proposal instructions for Factor 2 will be released at the beginning of Phase 2 of the solicitation process and will include a list of supported systems and associated system details. | |||||
| 68 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 27 | Phase Two: Factor 2: | table | In Phase 2, we recommend adding Oral Presentation Requirements to discuss the Vendor's Understanding and Experience to align with the 4 factors in phase 1 | The Government reviewed and considered this recommendation, but determined not to make any changes. | |
| 69 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 32 | Phase Two: Factor 4 Past Performance | 5 | Recommend that Past Performance examples be restricted to the 8(a) Small Business entity and in the case of a JV, restrict Past Performance to the JV members only | This recommendation was reviewed and considered. Proposal instructions for Factor 4 will be released at the beginning of Phase 2 of the solicitation process. | |
| 70 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 32 | Phase Two: Factor 4 Past Performance | 5 | Recommend in the case of an 8(a) Joint Venture (JV), the Past Performance examples be restricted to the Small Business JV members only | This recommendation was reviewed and considered. Proposal instructions for Factor 4 will be released at the beginning of Phase 2 of the solicitation process. | |
| 71 | IA-RMF_RFP-70Z04424RESDIAB01_v17_04-16-2024 | 32 | Phase Two: Factor 4 Past Performance | 5 | Recommend that in an SBA mentor protégé, at least one past performance must come from the protégé company | This recommendation was reviewed and considered. Proposal instructions for Factor 4 will be released at the beginning of Phase 2 of the solicitation process. | |
| 72 | COMBINED SYNOPSIS / SOLICITATION 70Z04424RESDIAB01 | 28 | c) Instructions to Offerors | 1 | Will Offerors that are deemed by the government having little or no chance of receiving an award be able to receive feedback regarding their Phase One submissions? | Please see the note in section c.4 of the Addendum to FAR Provision 52.212-1 (top of RFP page 28) indicating that "The Government will not provide Offerors feedback regarding their proposals until after award." | |
| 73 | COMBINED SYNOPSIS / SOLICITATION 70Z04424RESDIAB01 | 29 | FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation | 1 | In the evaluation criteria, wouldn't Factor #1 Prior Experience and Factor #4 Past Performance be the same? | Prior Experience (Factor 1) and Past Performance (Factor 4) was structured as two separate evaluation factors for this solicitation. | |
| 74 | COMBINED SYNOPSIS / SOLICITATION | ||||||
| 70Z04424RESDIAB01 | 31 | FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021), H) Phase Two, 2. CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION (CMMI) DEVELOPMENT (DEV) OR SERVICES (SVC) – MATURITY LEVEL 3 | Please clarify if in a prime/subcontractor teaming arrangement that only the prime is required to have CMMI Maturity Level 3 Development or Services. | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |||
| 75 | COMBINED SYNOPSIS / SOLICITATION | ||||||
| 70Z04424RESDIAB01 | 32 | FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021), 6) Factor 5: Price | Identify the contract vehicle that an offeror should use to price labor. Is pricing to be based off of GSA MAS pricing schedule? | Since this is a new stand-alone IDIQ contract award, the pricing is not based on existing contract pricing. | |||
| 76 | COMBINED SYNOPSIS / SOLICITATION RFP: 70Z04424RESDIAB01 | 31 | h) PHASE TWO: | 2 | CMMI Level 3 is very restrictive and will eliminate a large number of high performing and capable 8(a) companies. Will the government consider removing the requirement or replacing it with a more Cybersecurity focused framework such as ISO 27001? | The Government reviewed this question and updated the RFP language to clarify the CMMI requirement. See page 31 of the revised RFP document released with Amendment 0002. | |
| 77 | RFP | 29 | E. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS, FAR Provision 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, Bullet c) Instructions to Offerors, sub-bullet 5) VOLUMES I - X, sub-bullet ii. Volume II - Prior Experience | 1st para | The Government has stated "The Offeror shall submit examples of prior experience …." Will the Government confirm that submissions may include examples from subcontractors? | Prior Experience examples from any member of the Offeror's team are acceptable. | |
| 78 | RFP | 32 | E. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS, FAR Provision 52.212-2 Evaluation, Bullet h) PHASE TWO, sub-bullet 6. FACTOR 5: PRICE | All 4 paras | For the C5ISC Task Order Pricing, would the government please confirm that the offeror may use rates discounted from the IDIQ Maximum Labor rates? In other words, the rates applied to the Task Order pricing may be less than the IDIQ Maximum Labor rates. | Yes, that is correct and will be clearly stated in the Phase 2 Proposal Instructions when they are released at the start of Phase 2 of the process. | |
| 79 | RFP Attachment 2 | N/A | Tab "Labor Categories", Program Manager LCAT | N/A | The Government requires 1 year of experience for a Level 1 and the minimum of a PMP certification which requires 3 years experience if subject has a Bachelor's degree or higher. Since a Level 2 requires 3 years experience, will the Government remove Level 1 Program Manager proficiency level or alternatively change years of experience to 3 to align with the PMP's requirement? | The Government has reviewed this question and taken it into consideration, however, no changes will be made at this time. The Minimum Experience for the position for this contract is listed in the "Attachment 2 - IDIQ Labor Categories" and is more specific to the scope of this contract than the more general experience required for the PMP certification. Therefore holding a PMP certification does not guarantee an individual has at least 1 year of experience that meets this contract's requirements. | |
| 80 | RFP Attachment 3 | N/A | Tab "Labor Categories", Project Manager LCAT | N/A | The Government requires 1 year of experience for a Level 1 and the minimum of a CISM or CISSP certification which each require 5 years experience. Since a Level 3 requires 5 years experience, will the Government remove Level 1 and Level 2 Project Manager proficiency levels as someone with less than the Level 3 qualification cannot be a Level 1 or Level 2 anyway? Meeting the Project Manager Level 1 or 2 qualifications means they automatically meet Level 3 qualifications. | The Government reviewed this question and taken it into consideration. However, this requirement stands as stated in the RFP. |
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 .