Questions and Answers for 4 Apr 11 Posting.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

TO

RFP FA8224-11-R-0005

1. Q: How does this requirement relate to the CCS-C Block II Sources Sought that SMC released in March for the apparent follow-on “sustainment contract” for CCS-C? How will they fit together/relate? Please detail the distinction of the work scope between these two contracts.

A: We are helping the Space Missile Command (SMC)/Space Program Office (SPO) prepare for an independent source selection. This will include developing independent design documentation available to potential bidders (including ISI) along with providing them a CCS-C development lab (CDL) at Hill Air Force Base, UT.

2. Q: Is there an anticipated LOE for this contract?

A: We hope to get a LOE for 1 year to support the generation of the Bidder's Library (year 1)

System/Subsystem Change Requests (SSCRs).

3. Q: Is there an incumbent for this work or is this new work?

A: There is no incumbent for this work. This is a new requirement.

4. Q: Will the incumbent CCS-C prime (or any of their subs) have an OCI with this effort?

Conversely, once awarded, will any prime (or subcontractors) on this contract have an OCI should they choose to pursue the CCS-C Block II effort? Given the apparent overlap in contract timelines, does the government expect to waive any first year OCI’s to allow proper workforce knowledge base transfer (primarily for Epoch)?

A: This requirement will not have an OCI. In coordination with the Los Angeles AFB

Program Office and procurement team, Organization Conflict of Interest should not be a problem. Performance on this contract will not preclude the bidder from bidding on CCS-C

Block II as long as they disclose the fact that they worked on the Bidders’ Library (part of this requirement). Block II effort will be worked from the Program Office at Los Angeles AFB, CA.

The Procurement Office from Los Angeles AFB, CA will address any potential organizational conflict of interest when the requirement is posted for CCS-C Block II.

5. Q: Will there be a transition period for this work and if so, what is the nature and length of any expected transition period?

A: A transition period will not be required for this work.

6. Q: Where will evaluation of proposal be completed? Which organizations will be involved?

A: Proposal evaluations will take place on Hill AFB, UT. The 309th Maintenance Wing organizations will be involved in the technical evaluations.

7. Q: Since this only has a 12 month POP, are there plans to extend this?

A: Please see revised solicitation on amendment 0006. The revised requirement will have a

12-month period of performance with an option year line item.

8. PWS- 1.1.3 - This section states: Technical Documentation - The contractor shall develop, write, and edit CCS-C documentation and follow processes defined by the OO-ALC. The contractor will adhere to current documentation standards, the OO-ALC Configuration

Management Plan (CMP) as noted in Appendix D. Q: Due to the highlights in the PWS above, what OO-ALC processes in addition to the CMP will the contractor be required to follow?

A: The PWS has been revised with a focus on the Systems Engineering responsibility under paragraph 1.1.1. Please see revised PWS for requirement.

9. Q: PWS – 1.1.1 - In what form will the system be documented for the “High-Level View”?

Will it be textual only or will there be graphics, if there are graphics, what modeling tool will they be created\modified and stored in? (Section 1.1.1).

A: Both textual and graphical. We are using IBM Rhapsody to model the system design and

DOORS to track requirements traceability. The products will be provided at the job site. Please see revised PWS for requirement.

Do any event-trace models exist and will we have access to them of the current systems\sub-systems, if so what tool are they created/modified and stored in? (Section 1.1.1)

A: We are using Sequence Diagrams to model the software. Please see the revised PWS.

What is the current Testing environment? Are there any automated testing tools current in-use? If so, what are they?

A: This one year period of performance service requirement is focused on Systems Engineering

(Design -> Implementation Element -> code) traceability. The testing environment will be provided and is not the responsibility of the individuals for which this request is being made.

10. PWS – 4.1.3 - This section states “Personnel providing services under the basic contract shall be required to currently have the DoD 8570.1-M certifications listed in the table on day one. Q: Can the government provide the current list of labor categories and the certification(s) required for each position? Q: Will the government consider a grace period for candidates without the certifications day one? A: Please see the revised Performance Work Statement.

This paragraph no longer exists. Any system security required by the Security Manager can be accomplished onsite, at Schriever AFB. Network administration will be provided for the machines being used onsite. It will not be the responsibility of the bidder to provide that service.

The intent is to only provide Systems Engineering.

11. Q: PWS – 3.2 - Will the Government provide the contractor with access to Contractor

Development Lab (CDL) (e.g. Integral Systems, Inc. Development Lab) as part of the contract?

A: A separate lab will be stood up for this effort, and the contractor will have access. Please see the revised Performance Work Statement under Amendment 0006.

12. Q: Section l – 2.3 - Please clarify the number of CDs contractors are required to submit.

A: One (1) copy will suffice if a CD is provided. Please see revised solicitation under

Amendment 0006.

13. Q: Section M – 1.5.3 Past Performance Factor - What information should contractors provide for your review?

Are past performance questionnaire’s required? If yes, what is the required format and when are they due to the Gov’t?

A: No information is required from the contractor. Past performance questionnaires are not required on this solicitation. The Government will gather the information from Government or commercial sources (please see Section M, paragraph 1.5.3)

14. Q: Is there an incumbent for this work?

A: No, this is a new requirement.

15. Q: Does the incumbent have an SDVOSB classification?

A: An incumbent for this particular requirement does not exist. This is a new requirement.

16. Q: Can the Government share the name of any incumbent?

A: An incumbent for this particular requirement does not exist. This is a new requirement.

17. Q: If there is an incumbent, is the incumbent SEI appraised at CMMI-DEV Maturity Level

3?

A: An incumbent for this particular requirement does not exist.

18. Q: We assume the Safety Plan is to be provided at award prior to performance and not for proposal submission. Can the government confirm? A: Please see the revised Performance

Work Statement under Amendment 0006.

19. Q: Are there any integrations to DOORS to support the CMP or Testing?

A: The team evaluating the system will use DOORS to document any requirements traceability as affordable by the timeline specified by the Space Program Office.

20. Q: What Visual Modeling Tools are currently in place?

A: IBM Rhapsody C++ Developer will be available to contracted System Engineering individuals.

21. Q: What platform is Rhapsody currently deployed on?

A: The assumption here is this is an O/S question, if so Windows 7

22. Q: Will Rhapsody be available at Schriever AFB?

A: Yes

23. Q: What version of Rhapsody is currently deployed?

A: We are using Rhapsody Developer for C++ 7.5

24. Q: Are the current set of Rhapsody Models up-to-date in DOORS?

A: We are in the process of integrating Rhapsody and DOORs, this is what the requested subject matter expert support will provide by supplementing the team.

25. Q: I was also wondering, If teams w/a larger company (of course retaining the Prime position on the contract), can the team member satisfy the FSO DD254 requirement, as this contractor does not have that certification yet?

A: Teaming arrangements are allowed.

26. Q: Is a security clearance required?

A: Please see the revised Performance Work Statement, paragraph 5.1. Yes, a current security clearance will be required. Please see DD Form 254 on clearance level.

27. Q: So the company submitting proposals does not have to have the security clearances already? Just be able to get them if they win the rfp? Is that correct?

A: Please see the revised Performance Work Statement, paragraph 5.1. Contractor personnel shall be required to possess current security clearances. Contractor personnel will need to access the facility once the contract starts.

28. Q: Will a payment and performance bond be required?

A: A payment and performance bond is not required.

29. Q: Is or was there a mandatory meeting to attend?

A: There is no required meeting to attend.

30. Q: Are "Teaming Agreements" allowed or considered? (example - SDVO team with 8a firm for past and technical performance and bonding).

A: Teaming arrangements are allowed.

31. Q: I couldn’t see a number of persons for level of support. Would that be up to my digression, based on the Statement of Work, in the proposal, or are you looking for one engineer?

A: The contractor will determine the amount of employees based upon the requirements stated in the Performance Work Statement.

32. Q: The PWS identifies tasks that may require some level of support from the current CCS-

C developer (ISI). Is it correct to assume that support is within the scope of the developer's current contract with SMC (F0470101C0012)?

A: In coordination with Los Angeles AFB Program Office: All ISI support, a.k.a. Subject

Matter Expertise, is being provided under the current CCS-C contract.

33. Q: Regarding the following statement in the PWS 1.1.1: "The Contractor shall provide

Systems Engineering, Software Test Engineering and Technical Documentation services for the tasking of creating a bidder's library documentation set." Can the government clarify the intent of this requirement? Is it the government's intent for the contractor to provide support to the

CCS-C developer in the creation of the documentation set for the bidders library? Has the developer completed any technical/requirements documentation for the T&C subsystem already?

A: In coordination with Los Angeles AFB Program Office: The CCS-C developer, ISI, will provide technical support to the contractor to create the documentation. ISI has completed a

Software Product Specification, which is a unique document combining contents from several

MIL-STD-498 documents. Please see the revised PWS.

34. Q: On Jan 19 th

2011 a J&A posting appeared on FBO.

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=893cd364022dd95fd0b886610f914f38&t ab=core&_cview=0. The J&A Section IX indicates it is the intent of OO-ALC to procure

SRSs/IDD (Update)/IRS and other technical documentation for the bidder’s library from ISI and to establish that contract by April 2009. Has this contract been established with ISI? If so, please clarify the scope of that contract as it relates to this solicitation. What is the contract number and can bidders have access to the SOW for that contract, if awarded? This will be useful to the government to ensure bidders are not pricing effort against overlapping requirements, if any.

A: In coordination with Los Angeles AFB Program Office: ISI support, a.k.a. Subject

Matter Expertise, is being provided under the current CCS-C contract. None of the documents to be developed under this task duplicate existing CCS-C documents.

35. Q: In the same J&A referenced in Question 3 above, Section II indicates that it is the

“…aim of the CCS-C program office to establish a comprehensive bidder’s library by August

2011…”. Given that this posting was made on 19 Jan 2011, one day after the release of the subject solicitation, there appears to be currently conflicting expectations between the CCS-C program office and OO-ALC. Should the bidders assume that this expectation has been updated to be consistent with the POP of this solicitation?

A: In coordination with Los Angeles AFB Program Office: The bidders’ library must be completed by 31 December 2011. However, additional documentation development work may continue after that date.

36. Q: Regarding PWS para. 1.1.1 “The contractor shall be using the software requirements management product DOORS to manage the requirements and work with OO-ALC so that the repositories in COS (Colorado Springs) are synchronized with the OO-ALC”. What version of

DOORS is currently being used? If not the latest version, does the government plan to update versions during the performance of this contract?

A: DOORS version 9.2. Please see the revised Performance Work Statement under

Amendment 0006.

37. Q: Are bidders precluded from establishing teaming agreements with the current CCS-C developer? Would performance on this contract preclude the bidder from teaming with the CCS-

C developer on CCS-C Block II?.

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=893cd364022dd95fd0b886610f914f38&tab=core&_cview=0 https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=893cd364022dd95fd0b886610f914f38&tab=core&_cview=0

A: Nothing prevents the offerors from establishing a teaming agreement with ISI. With coordination from the Los Angeles AFB Program Office, performance on this contract will not preclude the bidder from teaming with the CCS-C developer on CCS-C Block II as long as they disclose the fact that they did work on the Bidders’ Library (part of this requirement).

38. Q: Does the government expect 100% of the work to be accomplished on-site? If not, is there an estimate available of government expectation of on-site vs. off-site (contractor facility) performance?

A: The Government expects 100% of the work to be accomplished on-site.

39. Q: CDRL A004 and A006: From PWS 1.1.1, "The contractor shall perform requirements management and be responsible for creating Software Requirement Specifications (SRS) and

Use Cases organized by subsystem, derived from the System and Sub-System Design Document

(SSDD) and System/Subsystem Specification (SSS), and SSDD for the Telemetry and

Commanding (T & C) subsystem development." This sentence indicates the SRS to be developed is for the whole system organized by subsystem. But the CDRLs indicate that ONLY the T&C subsystem is to be described and specified. Can the government clarify the requirement?

A: A single SRS/IRS organized by subsystem is the intent. Please see the revised

Performance Work Statement and CDRLs under Amendment 0006.

40. Q: PWS 1.1.1 also indicates that SSDDs, SSSs, SRSs, IDDs, and IRSs already exist. Can the government confirm/clarify this? Can the government provide a more specific list of which subsystems have been described and specified, and to what level this documentation is complete

(estimated percent complete)?

A: The focus will be on SSDD type work and SRSs requirements traceability to source code modules. This is due to the period of performance on this particular requirement. Please see the revised Performance Work Statement under Amendment 0006..

41. Q: The CCS-C is currently operational and supports multiple MILSATCOM missions.

Based on the that an SRS exists for the T&C subsystem, that verifications activities have been accomplished by the developer, and the associated documentation has been provided to the government; is it the government's expectation that the contractor create the optional T&C SRS

"from scratch" or should bidders assume the existing SRS will be updated "if required"?

A: Please see the revised Performance Work Statement under Amendment 0006. The PWS will have the T&C to require little work and the task will be mainly focusing on the Milstar and

DSCS requirement traceability.

42. Q: CDRL A005: Supplemental IDDs. The J&A posted on Jan 19 th

2011, section II indicates IDDs exist and may need updating. Can the government provide a list of which IDDs exist, and which need further development for this solicitation?

A: Please see the revised Performance Work Statement and CDRLs under Amendment

0006. Only one CCS-C IDD exists and that document is limited only to external interfaces.

43. Q: CDRLs A005 and A006: Remarks indicate a delivery required using Rational

Rhapsody. Does the government maintain this software on-site or does the government expect the contractor maintain its own licenses/versions? Does the government require the use of

Rational Rhapsody? If the government maintains Rhapsody licensing on-site, what version is the government using currently? Does the government plan to update version during the POP of this solicitation?

0006. The machines, software, support will be provided on site at Schriever AFB.

44. Q: Regarding PWS 1.1.1 "...shall communicate requirements to software developers, Test

Engineers and CDL (Contractor Development Laboratory) developers and administrators by the creation of Software Design Change Requests (SDCRs), SSDDs, Interface Design Descriptions

(IDDs) and Interface Requirements Specification (IRS)." IRS is not indicated in the CDRLs as a deliverable. Does the government require the contractor to develop an IRS this solicitation?

Should bidders assume that IRSs are already developed?

A: Please see the revised Performance Work Statement. No IRS currently exists.

45. Q: Should bidders assume that IRSs may require updates? Since we do not have access to the CM Plan, experience tells us to assume IRS updates are initiated through SDCRs. Will the contractor be responsible for updating the IRS? Or is this the responsibility of the developer?

A: Once the SRS/IRS is baselined, it will be updated by the CCS-C Block II contractor.

46. Q: Regarding PWS 1.1.3. This paragraph uses broad language that leads us to assume that the contractor may be responsible for evaluating and updating technical documentation for the entire CCS-C system as needed. Is this a correct interpretation? If so, to facilitate accurate bidding on a FFP contract, can the government provide a list of all documentation that the contractor could reasonably be expected to update?

A: Please see the revised Performance Work Statement under Amendment 0006. This requirement paragraph has been deleted.

47. Q: In order to show compliance with PWS 4.1.3, does the government desire evidence of certification to be submitted as part of the proposal, or will the government be satisfied upon contract award? If it is the former, does the government desire to review resumes of proposed personnel? If so, do resume count against page limitations?

A: Please see the revised Performance Work Statement under Amendment 0006. Any system security required by the Security Manager can be accomplished onsite, at

Schriever AFB. Network administration will be provided for the machines being used onsite. It will not be the responsibility of the bidder to provide that service. The intent is to only provide Systems Engineering.

48. Q: Please provide a list of all documents included within each of the CDRL requirements and a completion-level status for each

0006.

49. Q: Please describe the completion state and quantity of all UML or other models

A: Like so many deliverables in the Systems Engineering realm, it is to the level of granularity guidelines recommended by Defense Acquisition University for the subsystems listed in Question #55a. The PWS has been revised and paragraph 1.1.2 was removed to further narrow the work to be performed and the subsystem concentrations.

Please review paragraph 2.1 Systems Engineering Services of the revised PWS, dated 2

March 2011.

50. Q: How many of the models are already within Rhapsody and to what level of completion?

A: Only about 30% of the models are available and even less are editable, this will be a large portion of the respondent’s responsibility to help provide.

51. Q: How many models to be added to Rhapsody are there?

A: This topic was answered in the previous question (#50)

52. Q: Can we assume all necessary Rhapsody licenses are GFE?

A: Yes, this will be provided.

53. Q: The "Services Summary" in Section 2 of the PWS only defines Performance Objective and Threshold requirements for 1.1.1 (systems engineering) and 1.5.x (Reports). Should Section

2 capture all of the services specified in Section 1.1 and, if so, what are the Objective and

Threshold performance requirements for those elements?

A: Please see the revised Performance Work Statement under Amendment 0006. The requirement focus is for systems engineering.

54. Q: What percentage of the required effort is expected to be required to be performed at

SAFB? How many FTE work areas are to be provided by the government at SAFB?

A: 100% of the required effort is expected to be performed at Schriever AFB, CO. The requesting organization believes there is sufficient space at SAFB to accommodate the number of resources that can be provided.

55. There appears to be insufficient information to size and price PWS 1.1.2 as FFP.

A: Please see the revised Performance Work Statement under Amendment 0006. The

Software Test Engineering requirement is not required under this service requirement.

a. We are unable to ascertain where PWS section 1.1.2 is supported by the CLIN structure or

CDRL list or where it is to be priced. Please clarify.

b. It isn’t clear how software development included in this section can be sized for FFP pricing based simply upon information provided in the RFP. As such, we suggest creating a new

CLIN for PWS 1.1.2 as CPFF.

c. What is the schedule and expected scope of each planned software release during the performance period?

A: The schedule is 1 year from award date, and System Engineering support to document and prepare Block I documentation to help the Block II competition.

d. Please provide definitions and quantification for relevant CDRL entries

56. Q: What are the applicable OCI requirements for individual personnel who work this program as it pertains to their ability to join a CCS-C Block II development/O&M procurement bidder/team? A: In coordination with the Los Angeles AFB Program Office and procurement team, Organization Conflict of Interest should not be a problem. Performance on this contract will not preclude the bidder from bidding on CCS-C Block II as long as they disclose the fact that they worked on the Bidders’ Library (part of this requirement).

57. Q: How did this procurement become an SDVOSB Set-aside? Was it due to responses to a

Sources Sought or RFI previously issued and/or are there a cadre of SDVOSBs the CO already knows are capable of supporting the requirements at a fair and reasonable price?

A: The requirements team performed a market research through the Small Business

Administration website site on SDVOSB on the applicable NAICS code, 541519. The team contacted several vendors on their capabilities and interest for such a requirement in Systems

Engineering services.

58. What is the historical and/or current level of effort for this contract?

A: There is no historical or current level of effort for this requirement. This is a new requirement.

59. When does the Government anticipate awarding this contract?

A: The Government anticipates awarding this requirement approximately on/about 25 April

2011.

60. Is the offeror required to submit Personnel Resumes with its proposal; if yes, how many?

A: See Sections L & M on the requirement for resumes.