WICS_Questions_from_Industry_Amendment_003_updated_20141229.pdf

WICS Questions from Industry

Amendment 003

19 Dec 14

Question Response

Would the Government please provide additional context for the release of this amendment? Is the Government not able to award based on the original RFP?

Recognizing its erroneous omission of complete workload data from the solicitation, the government corrected this data omission by providing complete data in the amendment as intended.

Please explain why the PWS 6.2 requirements were redistributed across the other PWS areas. Were the 6.2 requirements mapped to the incorrect CLIN?

The data in PWS paragraph 6.2 was simply re-aligned to match the area of responsibility for the requirement.

What is the Government's expectation for integration of the workload data into an offeror's proposal?

The workload data is provided as an estimate only. The data is a rough order of magnitude intended to assist industry to gain a better understanding of complexity of the requirement.

Is it the Government's intent for offerors to adjust their assumptions and proposed price to incorporate the

"workload data"?

That decision is left to the discretion of each offeror.

Would the Government please provide clarification for how to interpret the workload data? More specifically, should offerors assume a "period" is one year, and prorate for periods less than one year?

If there are data that does not clearly state a period, then the offeror should use best estimating techniques.

Please provide context for how to interpret the "task recurrence period" against "occurrences." Is it the number within the whole period or the number within the "task recurrence period?" For example, PWS 3.1b on page 8 identifies the number of up-channel incidents and status reporting as directed by the Government. The list shows 143

Occurrences per Period with a "Daily" Task Recurrence

Period. One interpretation is there are 143 up-channel incidents received every day. Another interpretation is that there is a total of 143 up-channel incidents received in the contract period of performance but the task itself is conducted on a daily basis. Which interpretation is correct?

In the workload data, each PWS paragraph has its own defined periodicity.

Some are annually, some are monthly, daily, etc.

In the example, on the average, there are 143 up-channel incidents daily.

Does the Government require change bars or some documentation (e.g., change log) of specific changes made to the content in each updated tab?

No, as stated in the amendment, the government expects new proposal tabs as necessary.

In the workload data page 14, 6.1b it mentions 8 LANs

(NIPR & SIPR), but there are 5 installations referenced, is this correct?

NIPR and SIPR are considered separate LANs. Of the five locations listed in 6.1b, not all NIPR and SIPR LANs are part of the WICS requirement.

In the workload data page 14, 6.1c, the number of Units and

GSUs are inconsistent, what are the true numbers?

The workload data is provided as an estimate only. The data is a rough order of magnitude intended to assist industry to gain a better understanding of complexity of the requirement.

RFP Section 3.16 gives instructions for change pages after initial proposal submission but states “If the Government opens discussions and requests the offeror submit proposal revisions, during or after discussions…”. Since Amendment

3 explicitly states that discussions are NOT underway, I assume this paragraph is not yet valid. Due to that, how do you want revised proposal information to be submitted. I see you want a tab delivered if anything within the tab changes but how do you want it? Hard copy (and how many copies), soft copy, some mix of the two? How do you want changes to be shown or does it not matter since discussions aren’t open (essentially, just submit a new proposal and follow previous RFP guidance on delivery).

Any changes shall be submitted IAW Section L, Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 3.9 through 3.20, except 3.16.

As we are not in discussions at this stage, 3.16 does not apply.

The movement of IA functions from section 6.2 to other sections (2.3, 3.2 and 3.3) effectively decentralizes the IA function which was previously addressed collectively under

PWS Chapter 6, Wing Information Assurance (IA) and

Information/ Communication Systems Support. Likewise, the pricing for all IA functions was aggregated under CLIN x008 which is still specifically tied to Chapter 6 of the PWS in Attachment L-4. Is it the Government’s desire to continue to aggregate all IA support under CLIN x008 or do you now wish to see the appropriate portions allocated to

CLINs x002 and x003?

It is the government's intent to provide clarity to where the functions are required. It is up to the offeror to determine pricing that is consistent with the requirements of section L.

If some portion of the IA support is specifically allocated to

CLIN x003, will that support also start four months after contract award, providing only 8 months of support in the initial year?

It is reasonable to expect that the requirement will be priced in the specific

CLIN with the respective number of units of issue in the bid schedule.

Under the previous paragraph 6.2.1.2, Functional System

Administrator (FSA), the Government was to provide FSA training through the SAFB Networks Operations

(NETOPS). This statement is no longer found in the revised

PWS. Are there other acceptable sources for FSA training?

FSA is required to receive training for indoctrination into the effort which will be provided by the government. The FSA training should not be construed as IAT Level 2 certification training. The contractor is responsible for providing personnel with the qualifications and certifications necessary to perform the FSA functions.