AFCOTERS_DRAFT_Solicitation_Questions_and_Answers_10-30-15.docx

FA2550-15-R-8005 29 October 2015

AFCOTERS

Questions and Answers from Draft Solicitation Posting

1. How are these services currently being performed? Under contract? In-house?

Answer: These services are currently being performed under five separate contracts.

The contracts currently in place are as follows: (Current dollar values are approximated)

1) FA8773-12-F-0013, Air Force Test & Evaluation Assessment Management (AFTEAM), Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) $3.9M, 27 September 2012 – 26 March 2016.

2) FA4610-12-F-0005, Network Architecture Support & Maintenance (NASM), CSC, $1.9M, 13 February 2012 - 31 March 2016.

3) FA7037-09-F-8024, South Range Support, L-3 Services Corp, $3.4M, 29 May 2009 - 31 March 2016.

4) FA7037-08-F-0084, Emissions Security (EMSEC), L-3, $2M, 30 September 2008 - 7 April 2016.

5) FA8773-14-F-0016, Cyber Defense Evaluation & Test (CDET), AT&T, $3.1M, 4 August 2014 - 31 March 2016.

2. What is the anticipated Request For Proposal (RFP) release date?

Answer: The RFP release is anticipated in November.

3. Is it firmly decided this will be an open 100% small business set-aside, with no specific subcategory targeted and/or contract vehicle (i.e., GSA Aliant, 8(a) competition, 8aSTARS, etc.) being considered?

Answer: That is correct, it is a 100% small business set-aside, without further restrictions.

4. Will the remaining Attachment L docs (3, 5, 6, 7 and 8) be released prior to the final RFP being published? It would be especially valuable to be able to review “Attachment L-8: Scenario” to allow companies to firm-up their teaming and proposal response approaches.

Answer: All attachments will be released with the final RFP.

5. For the 3 required Past Performance (PP) references from the prime, must each of the 3 PPs show the relevancy in each of the 3 defined Focus Areas (FA), or for relevancy is it only important that across the 3 PPs presented by the SB prime that the 3 FAs are adequately addressed (e.g., presenting a mixture of FA subject area coverage across the 3 PPs)?

Answer: Please see Section M of the Draft Solicitation for a description of how relevancy is evaluated for each reference. The information contained in the Past Performance Relevancy Rating Table applies to each individual reference in order to determine if that reference is relevant or not.

6. In Section L and in the CLINS it states there will be both FFP and CPFF tasks. However, the spreadsheets are FFP labor rates, but we don’t see an FFP task order that we have to price out. Will the Government provide the labor hours and qualifications that must be bid FFP and clarify what elements of the PWS are FFP and what elements are CPFF?

Answer: The labor rates will be incorporated into the resulting contract and used for both FFP and CPFF task orders. Profit is not applied to CPFF task orders. The fixed fee amount shall be proposed in schedule B. The FFP task order requirements will be explained in the solicitation attachment L-3.

7. In Attachment 4 - Workload History there are numerous projects with less than one full FTE hours. Does the government anticipate the activity lending itself to, and the government allowing, the combining labor categories and personnel across multiple projects?

Answer: Yes, it is anticipated that employees may be used across multiple projects.

8. PWS Section 4.9 in reference to DoDD 8570.01-M. Will exceptions be given to those positions that are non-technical (i.e. Technical Editing Specialist, Data Flow Specialist, and Administrative support)? If not, what IAT or IAM level certification will be required for those positions?

Answer: Positions that are non-technical will not be expected to require 8570 certification.

9. On Draft Attachment L-4 Workload History. What labor categories does the workload line Administrative Functions cover? Does it include Data Flow and Security Specialist?

Answer: The Administrative functions are the Training, Tech Editing, Data Flow and Security Specialist.

However, the Data Flow and Security Specialists have not been used in the past and are not represented in the workload history. At present time, the Data Flow and Security Specialist are not required, but are covered in the PWS in case a task order is placed requiring those services in the future. The workload history only includes the training and tech editing positions.

10. The historical workload data (L-4) outlines approximately 32 technical positions as described in the AFCOTERS PWS v4.1 and the labor categories (attachment L-9) but does not cover administrative positions and duties.

Answer: See answer to question 9.

11. Is there an estimated of the number of hours required for the non-technical positions and duties? (I.e. safety, security, information management services, technical writing, etc.)

Answer: See answer to question 9. Training position would be approximately 1850 hours/year. Tech editing position would be approximately 1850 hours/year per position.

12. How closely does the historical workload data (L-4) match the future work load required for the technical positions within this contract?

Answer: The historic work load is based upon FY 12, 13 and 14. Workload is based upon test sponsor’s requirements which vary from year to year. FY 14 was slightly higher than FY 13. The mission was averaging a 10% increase from year to year until sequestration in FY 13. In the past few years approximately 25% of the mission has been “customer funded” and can vary greatly dependent upon funds available and test sponsor requirements. The 346 TS anticipates about a 3-5% mission growth in the immediate future, but can vary according to cyber needs.

13. The table of Section L attachments on p. 64 of the draft solicitation letter includes several attachments (L-3, L-5, L-6, L-7, and L-8) that were not released with the draft PWS and other attachments. Will these attachments be released for review in the near future?

Answer: All attachments will be released with the solicitation.

14. PWS Section 4.9 indicates that contractors should “adhere to DoDD 8570.01-M Requirements (Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program)” and “maintain all required DoD 8570.01 certifications, when applicable to contract tasks, keeping them current.” In the draft solicitation letter’s Mission Capability (Factor 1), Staffing Plan (Subfactor 2) section on p. 66, item #4 instructs the contractor to provide “a practical methodology for providing continual technical and advanced technical training to retain certifications, such as Security+, CISSP, and technical writing skills.” Which categories (IAT, IAM) and levels of 8570 certs are applicable for which positions on AFCOTERS?

Answer: IAT level 2 equivalent to Security +. Level 3 (CISSP) is preferred but not required.

15. PWS Section 2.3.1.11 states the contractor will “configure multiple levels of routers, switches, and firewalls across topologies that include 10/100MB/1TB over Cat5 and Fiber, 1GB over Cat5 and Fiber, Optical Carrier (OC) 3 ATM, OC48 High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC), OC48 Packet Over SONET (POS), OC192 HDLC, T1-T3 (telecommunications carrier systems), and wireless technologies including, but not limited to, 802.11a/b/g/n.” Since 1TB Ethernet doesn’t yet exist commercially – 400GB Ethernet is currently under development – is it safe to assume this is a desired future requirement?

Answer: Affirmative.

16. PWS Section 4.4 states “the main area where contract task performance will take place is at 3515 S. General McMullen, San Antonio, TX, 78226, located on Joint Base San Antonio Lackland, TX.” PWS Section 4.13.1 states “the contractor shall require access to Secret collateral, Top Secret-Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS-SCI) and other special category data” and that the contractor “shall be DCID 6/4 eligible with a current SSBI.” Do all contractor personnel supporting AFCOTERS require a current TS-SCI clearance on contract start?

Answer: Yes. Most work except EMSEC is conducted in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). EMSEC technicians require TS/SCI, as some work is TS/SCI also, and requires access to SCIFs.

17. Sections B and F of the solicitation letter describe a 17-day FFP “Phase In” period (CLIN 0001) that runs from 15-31 Aug 2016. PWS Section 3.8 lists a Transition Plan (CDRL A014) with a draft version due at the kickoff meeting and a final version due NLT 60 working days after the kickoff meeting. Is the Transition Plan related to the “Phase In” period? If so, is it really due 60 days after the kickoff?

Answer: The transition plans CDRL has been updated. The draft Phase-In Plan is due at the contract kickoff meeting. The final plan is due no later than 5 working days after the kickoff meeting. The draft Phase-out Plan is due 60 days after contract start. A subsequent submission is due 90 days prior to the end of the final ordering period.

18. DRAFT_Attachment_L-9_Labor_Categories.docx: This document contains detailed job responsibilities, but doesn’t establish minimum education or experience requirements. I’d recommend that the Government establish education and experience requirements for these positions.

Answer: Highly qualified candidates may contain any combination of education and experience. There are no specific limitations set forth by the Government. The Contractor shall identify their approach to filling the positions, including the minimum qualifications they will set forth when recruiting for each position.

19. DRAFT_Solicitation_15-R-8005_10-13-15.doc: L. 4.2.1 Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data: The solicitation states “Submit both a hard copy and an electronic copy using the exact file provided by the Government without changing the file format.” May offerors adjust headers and footers in the Government’s Excel files to identify the name of the company, date, and proprietary nature of the data provided?

Answer: Yes you may add headers and footers

20. Due to the security on base, would the Government consider an electronic proposal submission only?

Answer: No

21. Please clarify what is intended by 10 per reference in the Proposal Page Limit Table, Para 4.0. Para 4.3.3 indicates three (3) recent contracts performed by the Prime and three (3) recent contracts performed by each teaming partner and significant subcontractors.

Answer: Each relevant contract may contain up to 10 pages worth of information (Attachment L-6). Submit up to three recent contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Also include information on up to three recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors, performing at least 20% of the effort, that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort.

22. It is this contractor's understanding only a Government Agency can request DCAA to perform actions. Can the Government provide more detail surrounding a Prime's submittal of the Pre-review Request? For example: Does the contractor submit the request to the 50th CONS? What information is needed to create a request? Is there a request form located on the DCAA website?

Answer: The Contractor shall fill in the information at Attachment L-10, as well as DCAA SF 1408 and provide to the Contracting Officer at amy.franklin.3@us.af.mil. The solicitation will be updated to provide the Attachment as well as remove the requirement for the subcontractors to have a pre-review.

23. Will there be a second round of Q&A after the rest of the solicitation documents are released?

Answer: The solicitation will contain a question and answer period.

24. Can you provide an IT diagram of the Cyber Range?

Answer: That information is sensitive and not available for public release. The Cyber Range emulates as closely as possible the Air Force network.

25. How are programs integrated into the Cyber Range for testing? Do the programs provide just the software, or do they provide both Hardware and Software?

Answer: The cyber range has standard configurations that are modified for each test. There is a standard set of instrumentation software that is used. Each test is evaluated as to what hardware/software is required. If the individual test requires hardware or software that is not currently available, the test sponsor must provide funding for its acquisition or the hardware/software. If there is time, the acquisition will be acquired through the Air Force procurement system. In the past ten years, no specific hardware/software has been required. All purchases of equipment have come through the Air Force procurement system. If the test is for a specific software or hardware configuration, the test sponsor will provide the hardware and or software. Future UCAP and EMSEC tests, the test sponsors provide the systems under test.

26. Recommend modifying the solicitation for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Set-Aside.

Answer: The solicitation will remain a 100% small business set aside.

27. Request that the Past Performance time frame is expanded to 5 years (vice 3 years) Answer: The Past Performance recency definition remains at three years.

28. Request release of draft sample problems.

Answer: All attachments, including the scenario will be released with the solicitation.

29. Will the Government consider an Industry Day with one-on-one meetings?

Answer: No industry day is scheduled and one is not anticipated at this time.

30. The PWS refers to a number of documents the Government requires the Contractor to develop and/or maintain, including a Configuration Management Plan, courseware, materials, handbooks, etc. Can the Government confirm which of these documents/media are currently available versus which ones require development? Will the Government establish a Bidder’s Library to share the current state of these documents with prospective bidders?

Answer: The Government does not require the Contractor to develop documents without Government input, only to maintain documents. The documents that are required for development are listed in the PWS. All existing documents are considered sensitive material and are not available for perusal. Additional documents will be required on an as needed basis and will be in accordance with established 346 TS templates, for which the Contractor will be trained.

31. Reference PWS 2.4.1.8, should “356 TS” be read as “346 TS”?

Answer: Yes, 346 TS.

32. Section G includes FAR 5352.209-9000 on OCI, which requires, “…the contractor is precluded from award of any supply or service contract for the system or its major components…” Which “system” or systems does this clause refer to specifically? Should we interpret this to refer to Foundational procurements acquired by AFLCMC?

Answer: System, in this case, means any system under test. If Contractor A either develops, assist in developing or has monetary interest in a system that is to be or being tested, it is a conflict of interest for that contractor to participate in the testing of the system under test, as any discrepancies found could have an adverse monetary effect to Company A. Therefore, any "system", hardware, software or otherwise that becomes a "system under test" would be the system referred to in FAR 5352.209-9000, regardless of its' origin.

33. L-III B. references AF FARSS 5352.209-9001 which requires with regard to OCI that offerors present an OCI Mitigation Plan with their proposal. We interpret this to mean an OCI Mitigation Plan is required at the time of submission, as an appendix to the proposal, and that the page count does not count against established page counter per Section L.4. Will the Government confirm?

Answer: The Plan is to be included in Tab 7 of the Contract Documentation Volume. It does not count towards the page limits in the Technical Volume.

34. L-III B. references AFFARSS 5352.209-9001 with regard to OCI, and states “(b) If award is made to the Offeror, the resulting contract may include an organizational conflict of interest limitation applicable to subsequent Government work, at either a prime contract level, at any subcontract tier, or both.” Can the Government provide a representative example of such a clause? May offerors assume such a clause would be addressed in discussions prior to contract award?

Answer: Yes, the clause would be discussed prior to contract award. The 346 TS is an operational testing organization; it is not appropriate for a contractor involved in the development of a product to participate in the evaluation of that product. Should Company A be involved in the development of systems that potentially could be tested, it would be precluded from testing. Should subcontractors of Company A be involved in the development of systems that potentially could be tested, the subcontractor would be precluded from testing. If either the contractor or the subcontractor are not involved in the development of a system or have no monetary interest in the system, they may participate in testing. A conflict of interest could also arise if the contractor or subcontractor are direct competitors with the system developer. Any potential conflicts of interests need to be known and mitigation strategies addressed.

35. Reference Section L 4.3.3, Relevant Contracts. The instructions in L.4.3.3 seem in conflict with those at L.4.3.2 for PPQ, and with L4.0 with regard to the number of citations and PPQ desired, and accompanying page counts. Should offerors interpret the prime must submit up to three (3) recent and relevant citations, and up to three (3) citations for each major subcontractor, not to exceed six (6) total citations and accompanying PPQ?

Answers: The past performance questionnaires (PPQs) (L-5) are different than the relevant contracts (L-6). The number of PPQs submitted shall be limited to six total PPQs for the prime contractor and all teaming partners added together. The number for each subcontractor(s) meeting the 20% threshold shall be a minimum of one per teaming partner. The Contractor shall submit up to three relevant contracts (L-6) for the prime and up to three for each subcontractor performing at least 20% of the work.

36. Attachment L-4, Historical Workload shows a consistent drop in level of effort for the work contemplated under AFCOTERS. What caused the sharp drop-off between FY12 and FY13? Does the Government expect the level of effort to continue to decline?

Answer: Sequestration caused the drop-off. See answer 12. The anticipation is there will be continued growth.