N2ITSM_Industry_Site_Visit_Consolidated_Questions_20_May_16.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 57 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA2517-15-R-7001
About this file
N2ITSM - RFP FA2517-15-R-7001 - INDUSTRY SITE VISIT QUESTION RESPONSES - 27 APRIL 2016
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N2ITSM_Sources_Sought_Attachment.docx | DOCX document | |
| N-NC_EIS_Sources_Sought_Attachment.docx | DOCX document |
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
N2ITSM site visit questions
| N2ITSM - RFP FA2517-15-R-7001 - INDUSTRY SITE VISIT QUESTIONS - 27 APRIL 2016 FBO Posting: 20 May 2016 | ||||||
| Question # | Reference | Question | Government Response | Change Required (Y/N) | Location of Change | |
| 1 | Section L, Volume II, Sub-Factor 1 g & | |||||
| Atch 20, Staffing Matrix | Per the instructions in Section L, Volume II, Sub-Factor 1 g. the Staffing Matrix (Atch 20) is to be included in Sub-Factor 1 of our Technical volume and due to the following reasons the Staffing Matrix should be excluded from the Volume II page count. |
a. There will be dozens of different labor categories to adequately address the PWS Tasks, Sub-Tasks, and N-NC Services areas ;
b. the requirement to use only the drop-downs provided in columns B-E;
c. the likelihood that a given FTE will be matrixed to more than one PWS Sub-task/N-NC Service, and;
d. complying with the type size of no smaller IAW Section L.C.9., Due to the above the bidder will be required to us 11x17 size paper which counts as 2 pages each. This will cause the bidder to reduce allocated pages elsewhere thus diluting the responses to other areas of Volume II. Recommendation: Because of the critical nature of the staffing in the proposal recommend the Staffing Matrix be excluded from the page count. Staffing Matrix (Atch 20) is excluded from overall proposal page count, but the Staffing Matrix is limited to 5 pages. Y Amendment 0002
RFP Section L, Table 1 - Volume II , Technical Capability, Maximum Number of Pages column
RFP Section L, Sub-Factor 1g
| 2 | Atch 16, N2ITSM Pricing | |
| & Atch 20, Staffing Matrix | It is unclear what the Government is looking for in the column labeled “Position Description”. Regardless of what will be in this column the content will drive the cell to wrap to multiple lines further increasing the size of the staffing table. | |
| Question: What is the Government looking for the Position Description? Should it be a Labor Category Description? Please clarify. | Position Description provides 1-2 lines of staff responsibilities, similar to Labor Category Description. | N |
| 3 | RFP Section L, | |
| B.6; Certifications | Comment: In a 31 Mar 2016 21 CONS e-mail to potential offerors, Subject: FA2517-15-R-7001 N2ITSM Certification Research Suspense: 1 April 2016 03:00 PM the Government asked four questions with two concerning ISO 9000 and CMMI Level II. Question number four asked if a potential offeror did not have ISO or CMMI would they within 60 days. | |
| Question: Will the Government, based upon 60 days from 31 March 2016, extend the proposal due date to no earlier than 1 June 2016 to honor the intent of the question posed to potential bidders? | ISO 9001 and CCMI Level 2 Certificates must be submitted with the initial proposal submission. | N |
| 4 | Atch 16, N2ITSM | |
| Pricing, Tab 4 | Comment: The structure of Staffing Matrix (Tab 4) columns N-T does not allow the bidder to adequately account for teammate rates who will have different build-up percentages to get to a fully burdened rate nor identify any escalation for the option years. For any given salary each teammate will have different DCAA approved percentages for fringe, OH, G&A, etc. If the Prime uses a teammate’s base rate they would not apply their company’s build up factors to the teammate’s rates. | |
| Recommendation: Allow the Prime bidder to establish a Rate Card for the Base year and each option year for each Labor Category it submits in its Staffing Matrix. The Rate Card would be the ceiling rate that the Prime could propose for TO 1, TO 2 and proposed Projects for the life of the IDIQ ordering period. This is advantageous to the Government since these rate could be discounted by the bidder affording the Government additional cost saving. | The Staffing Matrix is for the Government to understand the Bidder's staffing approach and methodology to meet the PWS requirements. Rate Card information should be contained in the pricing volume. | N |
| 5 | Section I, Clauses |
Incorporated by Full
| Text FAR 52.222-46 | Comment: This clause identifies that the offeror must address the compensation levels of professional employees and include the following language: “Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.” The clause concludes with the language: Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal. Only the current incumbent contractor knows the compensation levels for their professional employees and because this is a FFP contract, without knowing what those levels are the bidder will be at a disadvantage to be in compliance of this clause. | |
| Question: Will the Government provide information concerning the compensation levels for current professional employees and if the Government cannot please provide the criteria for how the Government will evaluate compliance with this clause? | The predecessor labor rates will not be provided within the solicitation. | |
| The Government will compare proposed compensation plans to compensation indices such as Bureau of Labor Standards (BLS), DCMA FPRR, FPRA and rates and other information available to the CO. | N | |
| 6 | Section L, Table 1, | |
| Proposal Organization | Question/Recommendation: The RFP limits Past Performance citations to "10 pages in length for all citations submitted." This is insufficient to address Section L requirements in accordance with the Section M evaluation criteria. We request the page limit be removed, or that the 10-page limit apply at the individual citation level. Explanation: We believe this is appropriate for the following three reasons. First, the N2ITSM Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) Acquisition Strategy places significant emphasis on the importance of Past Performance information. The current page limit allows us only to state that our reference is relevant to the N2ITSM Sub-Factors, and that we provide a quality service. We will be space-restricted in our ability to adequately describe our experience relative to the criteria, and we will be unable to sufficiently describe how our performance met or exceeded the requirements to the Government's benefit. With the current page limit, the small amount of information we will be able to provide will hamper the Government's ability to properly review the relevance and quality performance of each reference, and to make a sound Performance Price Tradeoff decision. Second, in order to establish relevance, we are to describe our references' similarity to each of the four Sub-Factors, and to the applicable supporting criteria listed below each Sub-Factor in the Section M Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table. Sub-Factor 1 has four criteria; Sub-Factor 2 has five criteria; Sub-Factor 3 has three criteria; and Sub-Factor 4 has three criteria; for a total of four Sub-Factors and 15 supporting criteria. Section M also requires that we include in our description information related to the quality of our performance. According to Section L, Tab 3, the PPI Tool Past Performance Contract Citations are to include contract data, a brief description of the effort, and an explanation of how performance is relevant for each applicable Factor or Sub-Factor. This requires that the PPI Tool output will include the contract data, along with text fields for the brief description and relevance to four Sub-Factors and up to 15 supporting criteria. Section L requires that we explain how our performance meets the relevance requirements, yet the current 10-page limit allows us to only provide brief statements of relevance without any supporting explanations. Third, we are to submit our references via the Government's Past Performance Information (PPI) tool. According to the instructions in Attachment 11, "Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool Instructions" (see the section "Printing Reports and Submitting PPI Tool," paragraph #4), once we input the information into the PPI Tool, we are to print the information and include it in our Past Performance Volume, subject to the limitations outlined in the RFP. We recently used this same tool to submit our Past Performance references on another Air Force Solicitation that also used a PPT Source Selection methodology, and that had only three Sub-Factors and nine sub-tasks. In this case, the Air Force excluded all PPI Tool generated output from the page count, enabling the offerors to adequately provide the information required by Section L in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in Section M. Please note, the PPI Tool output is not a space-efficient format. The contract data portion of the output alone takes over one-full page, leaving an average of less than one-page per reference to address all text-required information |
The Contractor shall have 25, rather than 10 pages, for all past performance citations. This will increase the overall proposal page limit by 15 pages. Y Amendment 0002
RFP, Section L Table 1, Volume III Past Performance - Maximum Number of Pages column
RFP, Section L Para 1.3 Volume III-Past Performance (25 pages).
| 7 | Section L, 1.2.2, Tab 5, | |
| Sub-Factor 1: b, and c | The RFP limits the Sub-Factors 1 - 5 of Volume II, Technical Capability, to 40 pages. Given the large number of technical Tasks we are required to address, we request that the following supporting documents be excluded from the page count/limitations: ISO 9001 Certificate, CMMI Level 2 Certificate, Industrial Security Facility Database (ISFD) |
Explanation: The ISO 9001 certificate will take one entire page; the CMMI Level 2 Certificate will take one entire page; and the ISFD will take one entire page. The requirements of Sub-Factors 1 through 5 are significant and are already constrained within the 40 page limit.
Removed page count for CMMI Level appraisal and ISO 9001 certification from overall proposal page count. Y Amendment 0002
RFP Section L, Table 1 - Volume II , Technical Capability, Maximum Number of Pages column
8 Section M.4.1 Question/Recommendation: The RFP defines recency for the purposes of Past Performance references as contracts with at least 12 consecutive months of performance within the last three years from the release date of the RFP. We request this be changed to the last five years from the release of the RFP.
Explanation: There are several good reasons that the period of recency should be changed to 5-years. We describe two of them as follows: First, small businesses work closely with a limited number of customers to build relationships and ensure customer satisfaction. By definition, we do not have a large number of large contracts running concurrently. This makes a 5-year period of recency appropriate for SB set aside contracts. Second, 5 years provides the Government with the ability to assess an SB's performance over a longer period, rather than within a more limited, short duration time-frame. With 5 years, the SB is able to display sustained consistency of quality performance in a complex environment with demanding requirements, and in general provides the evaluator a broader perspective of the offeror's overall capabilities.
Past Performance changed to last 5 years from the release of RFP rather than 3 years. Y Amendment 0002
RFP Section M, Para 4.1 General.
RFP Section M, Para 4.2.1 Recency.
RFP Attachment 12, Para 1
| 9 | Atch 2, NETWORK O&M PWS | Question: Why does this PWS not make reference to the extant Department of Defense (DoD) Enterprise Service Management Framework (DESMF) and DoD Instruction 8440.01, which are directed by the Office of the DoD CIO/J6 for improving Enterprise ITSM? (This question also applies to section 5.10.E of Attachment 2-NETWORK OM PWS , reads: The contractor shall ensure processes conform to Government IT rules and regulations.) | The N2ITSM PWS requirements are based on ITIL best practices similar to DESMF. The Government believes that the N2ITSM PWS is compliant to DoD Instruction and Guidance. | N |
| 10 | Atch 1-BASIC PWS |
Para 1.4.3 & Atch 2 NETWORK O&M PWS Para 1.3.3 Explanation: Section 1.4.3 and 1.3.3, reads: Changes in the technological environment may include application upgrades covered under software assurance agreements, technical modernization of service assets, and replacing service assets that are nearing end of life; establish, maintain, and administer an integrated Knowledge Management System (KMS), portal-based, for collection, control, publishing, and delivery of all program/PWS documents, and make the KMS available and accessible to the Government.
| Question: What knowledge management tool does the Government have already licensed for the establishment of the new KMS, e.g. BMC Remedy ITSM Atrium, or Microsoft SharePoint, and what is its maturity status? (This Q also applies to Basic and OM PWS’ both in paragraph 2.2.6.1 requirement “for creating…a KMS.”) | The Government owned capabilities are MS SharePoint 2010 and MS Service Center Manager, and MS Service Center Operations Manager. All of these capabilities provide the basis for Knowledge Management System. | N |
| 11 | Atch 1-BASIC PWS | |
| Para 1.5.3.2, Atch 2-NETWORK O&M PWS Para 1.4.3.2 | Explanation: Section 1.5.3.2 and 1.4.3.2, reads: The N-NC and CMAFS infrastructure hardware assets for network access, campus, distribution, and TLA stacks are in the transition of being replaced from a Cisco original equipment manufacturer based environment to a Cisco Juniper Network mixed original equipment manufacturer base environment. The transition will begin in March 2016 with an expected mixed Cisco Juniper environment thru calendar year 2016. The transition is being performed by a third-party contractor. The contractor shall be responsible for both Cisco and Juniper network certified and experienced staff to perform the Transition and Support and Operations and Stability tasks and Tier 1/2/3 Technical Management IAW this PWS. |
Question: Please confirm that the third-party contractor cited above (emphasis provided) will be responsible “to perform the Transition and Support and Operations and Stability tasks and Tier 1/2/3 Technical Management IAW this PWS.” If the third-party is NOT responsible, who will provide training for sustainment of the Cisco/Juniper integrated system? What management tools will be furnished to support ITSM for these systems? This information is needed to accurately propose FFP workload and pricing The N2ITSM Contractor shall have Tier 1/2/3 experienced Technical Management staff to support both Cisco and Juniper network environment. The only training provided will be on-line training, no Juniper certification will be provided by the Government. It is unknown at this time the management tools to be used. N N-NC.
Do we need to amend any documents?
| 12 | Atch1-Basic PWS, | ||
| Para 1.5.3.3, Table 2 | Question: Please provide the OEM, Brand, Type and Model # for all devices, AND the specific ITSM tools currently used to support them? This information is needed to accurately propose FFP workload and pricing. | The Government has provided current Hardware Asset Catalog in the Technical Library. | N |
| 13 | Atch1-Basic PWS, | ||
| Para 1.5.4 | Explanation: Paragraph 1.5.4, as reads: The contractor shall assume that the ITSM capabilities and tools required to meet contractual requirements and execute this PWS may not be fully configured and optimized. |
| Question: How are Offerors to accurately bid FFP when the requirements are ambiguous; at what level are they configured (see emphasis above)? This information is needed to accurately propose FFP workload and pricing. | Contractor shall provide ITSM capability assessment as part of Transition Assessment requirements, para 5.8.1 (b). Recommendations will be provided to Government. | N |
| 14 | Atch1-Basic PWS, | |
| Para 1.5.5 C. & F. | Explanation: Paragraph 1.5.5, C. and F. The precise definition of “non-standard” requests and services is not contained in this section, nor is it in Section 2.3, nor elsewhere in the PWS. |
Question: Shall Offerors assume for FFP purposes that ONLY services defined in 1.5.5.I. are standard, making ALL OTHER requests “non-standard” and outside of the FFP workload calculation? If not, please explain further? This information is needed to accurately propose FFP workload and pricing.
| All service requests demand current services in the N-NC Service Catalog are considered standard. Para 1.5.5 are based on the historical service requests that will provide a baseline for LOE determination. | N | |
| 15 | Atch1-Basic PWS, | |
| Para 1.5.5 J. & Para 2.1.3.1.E | Explanation: Paragraph 1.5.5, J., and 2.1.3.1.E. The precise definition of “non-standard” requests and services as applied to “Lifecycle Replacement is not defined. There are two conflicting estimates in these two sections regarding monthly quantities of service requests; 800-1000, and 1500. |
Question: Shall Offerors assume for FFP purposes that ONLY services defined in 1.5.5.I. are standard, making ALL OTHER requests “non-standard” and outside of the FFP workload calculation? If not, please explain further, including correcting the number of monthly service requests – by type; non-standard vs standard? This information is needed to accurately propose FFP workload and pricing
| DUPLICATE: All service requests demand current services in the N-NC Service Catalog are considered standard. Para 1.5.5 are based on the historical service requests that will provide a baseline for LOE determination. | N | ||
| 16 | Atch1-Basic PWS, | ||
| Para 1.6 | Explanation: Paragraph 1.6, as reads: Over the life of the contract, the Government could execute the transition of services, processes, and/or functions from N-NC to other DoD Service Providers. The contractor shall support efforts with the staffing proposed in this contract to assist in the Service Design and Transition of services that are in the Basic IDIQ Service Catalog. | ||
| Question: As further described in PWS section 1.10, ITSM principles, as described in ITIL defines each Service Design and Transition for the transfer of a service to a different provider as a “release project”. ITIL documentation does not specify a preferred PM methodology for completion of each new release, but they are projects with a discrete initiation and close with acceptance criteria (per PMI), and not part of the ongoing service sustainment level of effort. There is also no estimation of effort or schedule to support FFP calculations. How shall Offerors bid these projects with the incomplete data provided? This information is needed to accurately propose FFP workload and pricing. | The Contractor shall expect that 4-5 projects are Third-Party as of Contract Start. Per Basis PWS Para 3 Service Optimization the Contractor is responsible for project integration among these Third-Party projects. Depending on the project phase (e.g. design, transition, early-life support etc.) the Contractor will have to determine their integration responsibilities to sustain as part of the N-NC Service Catalog. | N | |
| 20 | Atch1-Basic PWS, | ||
| Para 1.7.2 Table 3 | Question: Please confirm that Offerors are NOT to propose any effort related to support the Joint Cyber Center, as indicated in the table by the absence of the symbol “X” from all boxes in that row; is this correct | The Contractor's requirement is to provide Network Operations Center support which is in direct support to the Cyber Watch Operations Center/JCC. | N |
| 21 | Atch1-Basic PWS, | ||
| Para 1.8.1 Table 4 | Question: Since space on Government site appears to be at a premium, will an Offeror proposing to use significant percentages of fully qualified and cleared staff working DoD contracts on an off-site basis (ITSMaaS) be given a higher evaluation score? | ||
| Off-site basis is not a technical evaluation criteria. | N | ||
| 22 | Atch1-Basic PWS, | ||
| Para 2.1.1.1 A. | Explanation: Paragraph 2.1.1.1 A. as reads: During contingency and exercise operations, the Service Desk will be staffed 24/7 to meet the user demand. |
Question: Presuming these labor categories are hourly, and subject to overtime work rules, in the State of Colorado, how many exercises or contingencies will there be each year, in terms of total days, weekend days, total hours per occurrence, for Offerors to use for their FFP calculations? This information is needed to accurately propose FFP workload and pricing.
| See Basic PWS para 5.9, Contingency and Exercises, for this information. | N | |
| 23 | Atch1-Basic PWS, | |
| Para 2.1.1.1 A. | Explanation: Paragraph 2.1.1.1 A. as reads: During contingency and exercise operations, the Service Desk will be staffed 24/7 to meet the user demand. |
| Question: May Offerors meet this Service Desk surge requirement using fully qualified and cleared staff working DoD contracts on an off-site basis? This information is needed to accurately propose FFP workload and pricing. | Contractor's decision to work Service Desk on an off-site basis. | N | |
| 24 | Atch 1-Basic PWS, Para 2.1.2.1 B and 2.1.3.1 C. | Explanation: Paragraph 2.1.2.1 B, and 2.1.3.1.C, as reads: By exception, the IT Service Management Division Chief can elevate the priority of an operations element, staff section, and/or mission essential personnel for a temporary period of time to meet an urgent or critical command need and if there is a significant impact to meet the mission. |
| Question: How many of these service priority escalations will there be each year for Offerors to use for their FFP calculations? This information is needed to accurately propose FFP workload and pricing. | Historically, less than 10 requests per year have been elevated. | N | |
| 25 | Atch 1-Basic PWS, Para 2.1.2.4 and 2.1.2.5 | Explanation: Paragraph 2.1.2.4 and 2.1.2.5; Key Performance Indicators and Critical Success Factors, respectively; are not directly tied IAW ITSM/ITIL best practices for service improvement and Service Level Management. |
| Question: Would the Government please relate the KPI’s as progress milestones to achieve the objectives described in Critical Success Factors for use of the Offerors in calculating performance and pricing? (This same question applies to every reference to KPI and CSF in all specific task areas in section 2.1.#.) | Key Performance Indicators are related to IT Service Management Tasks and provide a measure to how well the contractor is performing the task. The Critical Success Factors are a measure to determine how Contractor is meeting overall N2ITSM requirements. Multiple KPIs are linked to Critical Success Factors, and some KPIs are linked to multiple Critical Success Factors. The CSFs allow the Government a means to measure the performance of the Contractor and perform quality assurance and surveillance of the contract. . | N |
| 26 | Atch 1-Basic PWS, | |
| Para 2.1.6.1 | Explanation: Paragraph 2.1.6.1 does not identify the tools available to establish the Problem Management database and the Known Error Database, e.g. BMC Remedy BPPM or Microsoft SharePoint. |
| Question: What knowledge automation tools are currently licensed, and what is the current status of these database new Release projects? | The Government owned capabilities are MS SharePoint 2010 and MS Service Center Manager, and MS Service Center Operations Manager. All of these capabilities provide the basis for Knowledge Management System. | N |
| 27 | Atch 1-Basic PWS, | |
| Para 2.1.1 F | Explanation: Paragraph 2.2.1.F., as reads: Develop and maintain a relational Configuration Management Database (CMDB) which is the sole, trusted source of CI data for the N-NC networks. |
| Question: Since the verb “develop” is used for the CMDB, what is the current status of this development project, and what CM automation tools are currently licensed, e.g. BMC Remedy ITSM Atrium? This information is needed to accurately propose FFP workload and pricing. | The Government owned capabilities for Configuration Management Database include, MS Service Center Manager, and MS Service Center Configuration Manager, and Air Force Inventory Management System (AIMS). | N |
| 28 | Atch 1-Basic PWS, | |
| Para 2.2.3.1 B | Explanation: Paragraph 2.2.3.1 B lists the following organizations for which the contractor is to “coordinate and draft OLA’s, but three of the four listed are actually customers/users for which the Service Catalog specifications (SLA) would be more appropriate (OLAs being reserved for peer organizations who contribute to service delivery); |
(1) 721st Communications Squadron (x1), CMAFS
(2) Regions and Sectors (x5): CONR, ANR, CANR, WADS, EADS
(3) Joint Task Forces (x3): JTF-CS, JTF-N, JFHQ-NCR
(4) Washington Field Office (x1), Pentagon Washington D.C.
| Question: Should services for the Regions and Sectors, Joint Task Forces and Washington Field Office, since they are CUSTOMERS, be governed by the Service Catalog SLA’s, as opposed to OLA, and CMAFS separated (as a customer, not provider) from the 721st, which as a unit may collaborate on service provision and needs an OLA? | All of the organizations in Basic PWS para 2.2.3 relate to Operational Level Agreements not Service Level Agreements. All organizations cited provide some level of enterprise IT service management. | N |
| 29 | Atch 1-Basic PWS, | |
| Para 2.2.5.5 | Explanation: Paragraph 2.2.5.5, as reads: The contractor shall procure all project materials in accordance with Government approved project implementation plan identified in individually awarded project task orders. |
Question: Since projects are not part of the steady-state sustainment FFP labor support activity, how are Offerors to price their procurement of materials (separate CLIN)? Will the Government please place this requirement in the project management sections where it is more appropriate (i.e., 1.5.5. E, 1.10, 2.1.5.1. N, 2.1.22.1. G(9), J. and L. and 2.3.1)? Contractor shall not provide pricing for material procurements in their pricing volume. Y Amendment 0002
Para Tab 3, NOTE
| 30 | Atch 1-Basic PWS, | |
| Para 2.2.5.6 A | Explanation: Section 2.2.5.6.A, as reads: Provide procurement for break / fix emergent requirements to meet P1A and P1 ticket resolution timelines when the required material for resolution is not available via standard bench stock. |
Question: Since procurement of spares is not a predictable level of effort that is part of the steady-state sustainment FFP labor support activity, how are Offerors to price their procurement of spares (separate CLIN)? Contractor shall not provide pricing for material procurements in their pricing volume. Y SIMILAR QUESTION RESPONSE FROM ABOVE Amendment 0002
Para Tab 3, NOTE
| 31 | Atch 1-Basic PWS, | |
| Para 2.3.1.1.A | Explanation: Section 2.3.1.1.A, as reads: Provide an integrated project management plan for all |
projects that are either contracted to this contractor or Third Party contractor.
| Question: How should Offerors price this requirement when the level of effort is unknown because the number of projects and third party contractors are not identified in the PWS? (Question also applies to paragraph 2.3.1.1.G.) | The Contractor shall expect that 4-5 projects are Third-Party as of Contract Start. Per Basic PWS Para 3 Service Optimization the Contractor is responsible for project integration among these Third-Party projects. | N |
| 32 | Section I, Clauses |
Incorporated by Full Text AFFARS 5352.209-9000 OCI REF: 21 CONS Final_Consolidated_Questions_22_Mar_2016 that were provided with the N2ITSM Revised Docs Comment: Question #59 in ref b above stated the following: (FA2517-15-R-7001, para 1.3.1 Tab 6 and page 50: 5352.209-9000) Under RFP 1.3.1 TAB 6 states “The Contracting Officer has determined that there is no current OCI IAW FAR 9.505 based on an initial analysis utilizing the AFSPC Mandatory Procedures OCI checklist….” Given the above determination, clause 5352.209-9000 on page 50 (page 54 in Final RFP) should be removed, and in its place, insert 5352.209-9001, which would be more appropriate.
In the response to question #59 the Government agreed and indicated that FAR 5352.209-9001 would be inserted however FAR 5352.209-9000 was not removed in the Final RFP document (see page 54).
Recommendation: Government remove FAR 5352.209-9000 from the RFP.
Clause Deleted Y Section I
33 Section L - Past Performance Given the importance of Past Performance in the Evaluation Criteria, we recommend the Government consider expanding the allowable pages for Past Performance to 5 pages each to provide greater details to allow the Government to make a more informed assessment of Contractor experience. The access database used to input the past performance page space and large font significantly hampers an offerors ability to fully portray past performance relevance. The Contractor shall have 25, rather than 10 pages, for all past performance citations. This will increase the overall proposal page limit by 15 pages. Y SIMILAR QUESTION RESPONSE FROM ABOVE
Amendment 0002
RFP, Section L , Table 1, Volume III Past Performance - Maximum Number of Pages column
RFP, Section L Para 1.3 Volume III-Past Performance (25 pages).
| 34 | Attachment 4 | Can the government please elaborate on the intent of the Staffing Capability provided within Attachment 4, Basic IDIQ Service Catalog, specifically the FTE Objective and the FTE Threshold? | The Staffing Capability information in the N-NC Service Catalog is a historically baseline of staffing that has been proven to be successfully in providing Technical and Application Management staffing levels. | N | |
| 35 | Section M | Will proposals that propose only the minimum threshold be considered acceptable? | The Offeror shall determine their staffing level approach to meet the requirements. The minimum threshold will not be used to determine acceptable | N | |
| 36 | Section M | Will proposals that do not propose the minimum FTE Threshold for each service be considered non-compliant or unreasonable? | The Offeror shall determine their staffing level approach to meet the requirements. The minimum threshold will not be used to determine acceptable | N | |
| 37 | Attachment 4 | Can the government please confirm the Staffing Capability included within Attachment 4 Basic IDIQ Service Catalog applies only to Service Operations functions? Does the government expect vendors to propose additional staffing to perform Service Transition, Service Optimization and Continual Service Improvement in our staffing plan and pricing? | The Staffing Capability in the N-NC Service Catalog is a historical baseline of only the Technical and Application Management staff to support Service Operations. It does not consider Service Transition, Service Optimization, and Continual Service Improvement staff requirements. | N | |
| 38 | Basic PWS | Regarding Key Personnel, is the government expecting Service Leads for each individual Service (65 total per the Service Catalog) or Service Category (8 total)? | The Contractor shall determine the appropriate service leads required to meet the Basic PWS tasks. | N | |
| 39 | Basic PWS | Are Service Leads required for all Services or Service Categories, regardless of Service Owner and support requirements from the Contractor? | The Contractor shall determine the appropriate service leads required to meet the Basic PWS tasks. | N | |
| 40 | Attachment 4 | Is the Certification Requirement provided within Attachment 4 Basic IDIQ Service Catalog (in the Staffing | |||
| Capability for each service) a requirement or a desire? | The Certification Requirement in the IDIQ Service Catalog is desired. | N | |||
| 41 | Attachment 4 | In some cases, the Certification Requirements provided in Attachment 4 Basic IDIQ Service Catalog, are not realistic for the labor category (position). As an example, the Staffing Capability for 1.1 DISN Service shows an Information System Security (Network) (Junior) Position with CCNP (Security) as a Certification Requirement. This professional level certification warrants a senior position. The market demands for these type of certifications typically call for higher rates and therefore make staffing very difficult if not impossible to fill at the Junior level. | The Offeror shall determine the certification level of all staffing based on the duties they will perform to meet Basic PWS requirements and in compliance with DoDI 8500.01 requirements. | N |
| 42 | Section M | To be considered relevant, the Offeror must show experience in criteria A, B, C, and D listed below in a contract with at least an annual amount of $10 million ....Considering this is a small business competition, please consider reducing the value of $10M to perhaps $7M so small businesses can comply? | ||
| The Government will not change the $10M annual criteria for Relevancy. | N | |||
| 43 | Section M | The within "3 year past performance requirement" seems restrictive. 5 years seems to be more of the norm and will allow for more of a competition. | Past Performance changed to last 5 years from the release of RFP rather than 3 years. | SIMILAR QUESTION RESPONSE FROM ABOVE |
Amendment 0002
RFP Section M, , Para 4.1 General.
RFP Section M, Para 4.2.1 Recency.
RFP Attachment 12, Para 1
| 44 | Site Visit | Regarding the training rooms, what is the seating capacity? | Up to 350 people with chairs only. | N |
| 45 | Site Visit | Regarding the Service Desk, who owns the equipment? | ||
| The equipment in the Service Desk is Gov't Furnished Equipment. | N | |||
| 46 | Site Visit | Regarding the PSCR/SCR Control Booth, who owns the equipment/space? | ||
| The equipment is GFE, the space is primarily operated by Gov't personnel, but is maintained by the contractor. | N | |||
| 47 | Site Visit | Regarding the PSCR/SCR Control Booth, is there a schedule? | ||
| Yes, all VTC/Rich Media spaces are used at approximately 90% of schedule capacity | N | |||
| 48 | Site Visit | Are the PSCR/SCR SCIFs? | No. | N |
| 49 | Site Visit | Regarding the PSCR/SCR, what is the highest classification? | ||
| TS is the highest authorized capability, but it does not support TS VTC, only TS Tabletop capabilities. | N | |||
| 50 | Site Visit | Regarding the GO/FO IT Support Desk (within the SJS Office), is it |
manned 24x7?
No, however 24/7 on-call Service Desk is required and 24/7 manned during exercises and contingencies. N
51 Section L For a legally formed and approved small business Joint Venture (JV) that meets NAICS Code 541519 and whose members have one or both of the required certifications (ISO 9001 and CMMI Level2), will the JV then meet the Government’s requirement that these certifications must be held at the prime offeror’s organizational level performing the contract? Yes. The Joint Venture partners together must have both certificates. Y Amendment 0002
RFP Section L, Para B.6 52 Section L For a legally formed and approved small business Joint Venture (JV) that meets NAICS Code 541519, will two past performance citations from the JV members satisfy the Government’s requirement that at least two citations be from the prime offeror’s organizational level performing the contract? Yes. N
53 REFERENCE: RFP SECTION L, B. GENERAL INFORMATION, 6. Certificates. The Prime Offeror is required to maintain ISO 9001 and CMMI Level II certificate and provide proof of the Certificates (copy of each certificate shall be submitted with the initial proposal submission). And reference the SITE VISIT, RFP FA2517-15-R-7001, NORAD-USNORTHCOM Information Technology Service Management (N2ITSM) Support briefing, specifically Slide 7, last bullet on the acquisition strategy states a requirement for, “ISO 9000 and CMMI Level II at Prime Level.” QUESTION: If a newly formed Joint Venture (JV) company, since it is an independent entity with its own DUNS code, submits a proposal as a “prime offeror” and if the JV company is not certified as ISO 9001 and appraised at CMMI Level 2 or above, will the government consider the JV to be certified just because one of the JV partner companies holds a certification? JVs can be formed as a conglomeration of dozens of partner companies. Attributing a certification held by just one of the many JV partner companies to the JV entity itself (which holds no certifications at all), presents an unfair competitive advantage over the traditional prime/sub teaming arrangement and introduces significant risks to the N2ITSM program. Note, the government already stipulated in a previously answered question that in a traditional prime/sub relationship, that the prime contractor must hold the certifications, not its teammate subcontractors. For these reasons, we respectfully suggest the government consider the language included in GSA’s Alliant 2 Small Business draft RFP: L.5.1.5 Existing Joint Venture or Partnership, if applicable - pages 98-99 (attached): "An Offeror may submit a proposal under an existing CTA in the form of a Partnership or Joint Venture only if the existing Partnership or Joint Venture has a corresponding DUNS Number in SAM.GOV and all the proposal submission documents are in the name of the existing Partnership or Joint Venture, not the individual members of the Partnership or Joint Venture." "The Joint Venture or Partnership, not the individual team members, must represent all proposal submission documents required under Section L.5., including all Relevant Experience, Past Performance, Systems, Certifications, and Clearances, as applicable, under this solicitation." The Government will consider the Joint Venture to be certified as long as the JV partners have both certifications. An Offeror may submit a proposal in the form of a Joint Venture if the existing Joint Venture has a corresponding DUNS number in SAM.GOV and all the proposal submission documents are in the name of the existing Joint Venture, not the individual members of the Joint Venture. Y Amendment 0002
RFP , Section L, Section A, Para 1.1
RFP Section L, Para B.6
54 Section L QUESTION: In this RFP, the government requires the prime contractor to submit at least two (2) past performance citations for work performed for at least 12 consecutive months. Therefore, if a Joint Venture company (JV) was created within the last 12 months, the JV would have no past performance citations to offer under its own DUNS code. Since JVs can be formed as a conglomeration of dozens of partner companies, will the government allow partner companies of the JV to pick and choose which JV partner company will act as prime contractor for purposes of submitting past performance citations, or perhaps even allow JV partner company A to submit one prime contractor past performance and JV partner company B to submit the other prime contractor past performance? Doing so presents an unfair competitive advantage over the traditional prime/sub teaming arrangement and introduces significant risks to the N2ITSM program. For these reasons, we respectfully suggest the government consider the language included in GSA’s Alliant 2 Small Business draft RFP: L.5.1.5 Existing Joint Venture or Partnership, if applicable - pages 98-99 (attached): "An Offeror may submit a proposal under an existing CTA in the form of a Partnership or Joint Venture only if the existing Partnership or Joint Venture has a corresponding DUNS Number in SAM.GOV and all the proposal submission documents are in the name of the existing Partnership or Joint Venture, not the individual members of the Partnership or Joint Venture." "The Joint Venture or Partnership, not the individual team members, must represent all proposal submission documents required under Section L.5., including all Relevant Experience, Past Performance, Systems, Certifications, and Clearances, as applicable, under this solicitation." In a Joint Venture arrangements the individual JV partners Past Performance Citations may count as Prime Citations and will be evaluated against the Past Performance criteria. Y Amendment 0002
RFP , Section L, Section B, Para 1.3.1, Tab 3 55 RATIONALE: There are 3 constellations of CMMI models: 1) Services: CMMI-SVC, 2) Development: CMMI-DEV, and 3) Acquisition: CMMI-ACQ.
1) The Services "CMMI-SVC" model is suitable for a program that delivers services, e.g. IT Services for NORAD and USNORTHCOM Information Technology Service Management.
2) The Development "CMMI-DEV" model is suitable for a project that develops products or services, e.g. a software development project, which the PWS demonstrates is not the core mission of N2ITSM.
3) The Acquisition "CMMI-ACQ" model supports acquisition/procurement processes.
| QUESTION: In the N2ITSM RFP, the government did not specify which one (or more) of the three types of CMMI certifications that the prime contractor should hold. Will the government clarify the CMMI requirement by specifying that the prime contractor hold and maintain the "Services" CMMI-SVC appraisal? | The CMMI appraisal shall be an appraisal of IT Service Management functions and/or processes. | N | |||
| 56 | REFERENCE: RFP FA2517-15-R-7001, Section M, C. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY, Paragraph 4., subparagraphs 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2 state: | QUESTION: Considering a) the 541519 NAICS code size standard of $27.5M which constrains the size and number of simultaneous contracts a small business offeror has in its portfolio, b) the requirement that the small business Prime offeror must provide two (2) of the past performance citations c) the $10 Million relevancy criteria in paragraph 4.2.2, and d) the 5 year performance period of this IDIQ contract and other similar contracts that small business primes may have available as Past Performance references, the government should consider that it can increase competition and receive more representative and relevant past performance citations if the recency criteria were extended from the last three (3) years to the last five (5) years. | Past Performance changed to last five years from the release of RFP rather than 3 years. | Y | SIMILAR QUESTION RESPONSE FROM ABOVE |
Amendment 0002
RFP Section M, , Para 4.1 General.
RFP Section M, Para 4.2.1 Recency.
RFP Attachment 12, Para 1 57 Section M To enable increased competition, will the government extend the past performance recency requirement from “the last three (3) years” to “the last five (5) years”? Past Performance changed to last five years from the release of RFP rather than 3 years. Y SIMILAR QUESTION RESPONSE FROM ABOVE
Amendment 0002
RFP Section M, , Para 4.1 General.
RFP Section M, , Para 4.2.1 Recency.
RFP Attachment 12, Para 1
58 Section L, Page 69, A General Instructions Question: Based upon the indication that an offeror could complete CMMI Level II within 60 days of the questions posed by 21 CONS on 31 Mar; would an offerors proposal be accepted and be considered responsive if CMMI Level II is not completed until after the 23 May submission date? To be considered responsive, certificates must be delivered with proposal documents by required delivery date. N Does N-NC agree?
59 RFP General Para 4.1 The purpose of the Government’s Past Performance Evaluation is to assess the Offeror team’s (including Prime, Subcontractors, and Partners) performance for work performed for at least 12 consecutive months within the last 3 years from the release date of this RFP. The proposed PPI will be evaluated based on recent performance on relevant contracts. This portion of the evaluation will consider the Offeror's performance including Prime Contractor experience, Subcontractor experience, performance quality of its key personnel, and performance quality of any of the Offeror’s proposed Subcontractors and/or Partner/Team Participants. Could you please clarify the Team's Past Performance relevancy requirements. Do all 5 citations have to be rated "Relevant" to receive a "Relevant" grade? Does the Prime have to be rated "Relevant" or just some team member? Is it some combination or score of "Relevant" and "Somewhat Relevant" citations for the team? Each past performance citation will be rated separately. All combined past performance citation evaluations will determine the Confidence Level. N
60 Section L & M How many citations are needed in total - please clarify? Minimum 2 (from Prime) Max Five ( 2 Prime + 3 Sub) N
61 Section M Will the Government clarify how the Past Performance rating will be derived. With the requirement being to submit 3-5 Past Performances how many of the submitted citations must be relevant for an overall rating of relevant for he offeror. If one is relevant will the entire past Performance submission be rated as relevant? Each past performance citation will be rated separately. All combined past performance citation evaluations will determine the Confidence Level. N
| 62 | Section M, Para 4.2.2; page 85 | The relevancy size requirement is unreasonably high for small business set aside with this NAICS code size criteria. Recommend lowering the requirement for “Relevant” rating to $4M and $3M for “Somewhat Relevant” rating. | The Government will not change the $10M annual criteria for Relevancy. | N | |
| 63 | Section M, Para 4.2.2; page 85 | Multi-national IT support requirement should be removed from past performance relevancy requirements. It is simply too restrictive, given the extremely limited opportunities for a small business to provide this type support. Supporting multi-national users may require following different policy and regulations, but the IT service operations are essentially the same | The Government will not change the $10M annual criteria for Relevancy. | N | |
| 64 | RFP, Attachment 16 | The “at least 12 months of consecutive work” past performance requirement restricts the use of more recently awarded contracts that could be very relevant and reflective of small business capability. Recommend reducing the 12 month requirement to 6 months. | Government will remain at 12 months of consecutive work. | N | |
| 65 | Section M, Para. 4.2.1; page 85 | Responses to transition requirement can be extremely variable, and the RFP does not provide guidance or metrics for acceptable transition. Recommend the government provide a pricing plug for transition to ensure level playing field for all offerors. | |||
| Budget for Transition: Network O&M: $160K and ODC Mexico: $15K | Y | Amendment 0002 |
RFP, Section L, Para 1.1.3 Budget Information
| 66 | Section M, Para. 4.2.2; page 85-86 | Please confirm that for a citation offered where the offeror performed as a subcontractor, the dollar value | |
| associated with relevancy ratings are based on the actual value of the work performed by the offeror not the overall contract value? | In determining relevancy of Present and PPI, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort being proposed by the Offeror. | N |
| 67 | Atch 1, Basic PWS | Attachment 1 Basic PWS, Section 1.8.2 (p 14), Geographical Location On-Site Support: Should personnel at all three ODC Mexico service desks be bi-lingual (English-Spanish)? | The Offeror shall determine bi-lingual needs. The Government would recommend this capability since the ODC Mexico staff support Mexican military locations and the bi-lingual nature of the US Embassy. | N | |
| 68 | Atch 1, Basic PWS | Attachment 1 Basic PWS, Section 1.8.2 (p 14), Geographical Location On-Site Support: If SIPR services can be provided remotely from N-NC base in Colorado, do personnel at all three service desks at ODC Mexico need secret and/or top secret clearances? | Offeror's choice on mix of clearances for ODC Mexico staff, just need to be able to cover the clearance requirements. | N | |
| 69 | Atch 1, Basic PWS | Attachment 1 Basic PWS, Section 1.8.2 (p 14), Geographical Location On-Site Support calls for 3 seats with 24/7 access. Does that mean shifts of 3 FTEs covering 24/7, or 3 FTEs total providing on-call 24/7 support? Is the government asking for on-call support or dedicated staff 24/7? How many people will be sitting at ODC Mexico? | This is an on-call 24/7 requirement. | N | |
| 70 | Atch 5, ODC Mexico PWS | Attachment 5, ODC Mexico PWS: During major exercises (SENTRY and SHIELD) should the contractor's technical staff be present in the Embassy 24/7? | This is an on-call 24/7 requirement. | N | |
| 71 | Atch 5, ODC Mexico PWS | Attachment 5, ODC Mexico PWS: What is the scope of equipment in Mexico, and how much support does the contractor need to provide? | See ODC Mexico Service Catalog in Attachment 5 to make the determination. | N | |
| 72 | Section L | RFP Section L, item D, paragraph 1.3.1 (p 78) specifies “Tab 3: Past Performance Contract Citations. The Offeror shall provide five (5) total recent and relevant performance citations for the proposed Contractor team in accordance with the information below.” Section L, Item C, paragraph 2 (p 72), however, says "The offeror shall provide not more than five (5) total performance citations.” Please clarify if the requirement is for five (5) citations or up to a maximum of five (5) citations. | The requirement is for five (5) citations or up to a maximum of five (5) citations. | N | |
| 73 | Section M | RFP Section M, item C, paragraph 4.2.2 (p 85) explains that to receive a Relevant Past Performance rating, the citation must be worth at least $10M per year and for Somewhat Relevant must be at least $5M per year. This requirement is satisfactory for the Prime Offeror but is unduly restrictive with respect to Subcontractor performance. Essentially, the Subcontractor, according to elsewhere in this section is being graded according to the percentage of work they are assigned and the specific responsibilities they will assume. For example, why should a Subcontractor who will be performing the Warehouse function be required to have a $10M citation for a Relevant grade when the actual cost of the N2ITSM warehouse requirements are significantly less then that value on a per year basis. We recommend the Government adjust the Relevancy section to remove a specific annual revenue requirement for Subcontractor past performance while keeping the per citation per year Revenue requirement for the citations of the Prime Offeror. | The Government will not change the $10M annual criteria for Relevancy. | N |
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 .