FA445208R0001_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

APPLICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE AND SYSTEMS SUPPORT (AISS)

SOLICITATION FA4452-08-R-0001

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. RFP Section M, page 82, Table 4: The Past Performance relevancy criteria do not include training. Are training Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS) expected to be included in our submittal?

Answer: Section M, Table 4, PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY, has been updated in solicitation Amendment 0001 to include training support.

2. RFP Section M, Para 4.2.1.4, fourth bullet, page 80: Please clarify your expectations regarding ‘salary and fringe benefits’ for key positions.

Answer: Salary and fringe benefit information for professional employees is required in accordance with Section L provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation For Professional Employees.

3. RFP Attachment 2, Section J, Past Performance Information. Paragraph I requires the offeror to “Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant acquisition. Indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions.” Request the Government:

a. Clarify the term ‘instant acquisition” and its applicability to this solicitation.

b. Clarify whether paragraph I applies to key personnel not related to instant acquisition.

Answer: Paragraph I is being deleted from Solicitation Section J, Attachment 2. Revised Attachment 2 is being provided in Amendment 0001.

4. RFP Section M, Page 82, Table 4, Past Performance Relevancy. The referenced table relevancy description requires “Recent DOD or commercial experience…” Are past performance contracts from Federal and State agencies other than DOD acceptable for submission?

Answer: Yes.

5. PWS para 2.2.1.2 specifically excludes Application Support from the scope of this effort, however the Past Performances evaluation criteria (RFP Table 4) identifies the citation of multiple systems application support as a key relevancy descriptor. Please clarify.

Answer: Application Support only applies to the hardware and software required to support the infrastructure, and does not include program developed software applications.

6. RFP Section L, page 66, para 1.2.2 and Table 1.2 (Proposal Organization): What is the Government’s definition for the Teaming Matrix?

Answer: Teaming matrix is defined as other key firms, partners, subcontractors, etc., including the distribution of workload cross referenced by task.

7. PWS Para 6.1 requires a Staffing Plan (CDRL A001) to be delivered with the proposal. The PWS also identified the following CDRLs to be delivered with the proposal: A006 (Phase-in Plan), B012 (Draft Quality Plan), B013 (Draft Configuration Management Plan), and C002 (Draft Master Test Plan). The RFP also requires an OCI Plan and Staffing Plan,

a. Are the RFP Section L instructions in Table 1.2 and following paragraphs saying these documents comprise the Draft Configuration Management Plan (para 3.2.3.2), Draft Quality Plan (para 3.2.3.3), draft Master Test Plan (3.2.3.4), Training Plan (3.2.3.5). (not a CDRL required at proposal delivery), Staffing Plan, Phase-in Plan, Management Plan, and Subcontracting Plan in total or subsets thereof?

Answer: Section L, Table 1.2, has been updated to address these plans and their page limitations in Amendment 0001. The following items are clarified and added to Table 1.2: 3.2.3.2, Draft Configuration Management Plan; 3.2.3.3, Draft Quality Plan; 3.2.3.4, Master Test Plan; 3.2.3.5, Training Plan; 3.2.4.1, Staffing Plan; and 6.3.3, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Identification and Mitigation Plan (OIMP). The Technical Approach is covered under 3.2.3, the Program Management Plan is covered under 3.2.4, the Transition Plan (Phase-In Plan) is covered under 3.2.5, and the Management of Subcontracting Plan is covered under 3.2.6.

b. Do these plans count against the 50 page limit for the Mission Capability Volume?

If not, may we submit them in a separate volume or as attachments to Volume II, Mission Capability?

Answer: Table 1.2 clarifies page limitations.

8. Currently, GCCS Training for AMC personnel is accomplished at the Air Force Expeditionary Center. What is the Government’s plan for GCCS training for this effort?

Answer: GCCS training is not included in this effort.

9. RFP Attachment 9 (Workload Estimate). The workload estimate identified for Functional and Technical Training equates to approximately 7 FTEs, similar to the training support currently provided for GDSS only. Is it the Government’s intent to use this same level of effort across all seven systems?

Answer: The historical workload estimate for Functional and Technical Training supported five of the seven systems, with the exception of GCCS and GATES. The historical workload data are provided to assist offerors in establishing firm fixed prices, with the expectation industry will provide optimized solutions. Section J, Attachment 9, is updated to reflect historical workload data over a twelve-month period, with the exception of Transition (Phase-In).

10. PWS para 2.1.7.2 (CM Records). The last paragraph in this section states, “…as the listed programs migrate to this contract…” We interpret this to mean that listed programs will migrate to the AISS program on a government determined schedule. If this interpretation is correct, will you provide the migration schedule to potential bidders?

Answer: No. All programs will require support from day one, with the exception of GATES and GCCS in the area of Functional and Technical Training. When Functional and Technical Training requirements for GATES and GCCS become known, they will be incorporated later as Future Negotiated Tasks. PWS paragraphs 2.5 and 2.7.1 are revised to reflect when Functional and Technical Training requirements for GATES and GCCS become known, they will be incorporated later as Future Negotiated Tasks.

11. A number of plans are specifically called for in CDRLs and others seem to be implied as required. Please confirm the plans that are required with the proposal.

Answer: Section L, Table 1.2, has been updated to confirm plans required. See answer to #7 above.

12. Normally plans required to be delivered with the proposal are provided as attachments to the proposal Volume response and are not part of the proposal response page count. Is it acceptable to appropriately address and explain the plans in the text of Volume 2 and include the drafts of the plans required with the proposal (by CDRLs) as attachments to the appropriate Volume?

Answer: Section L, Table 1.2, has been updated to address page count.

13. Ref RFP, Attachment 9, Workload Estimates: Do all tasks apply to all systems at the start of the contract or will systems be gradually phased into the contract?

Answer: See #9 and #10 above..

14. Ref RFP, Attachment 9, Workload Estimates: Does the historical staffing represent the total of all staff supporting the current staffing levels for AISS tasks for each of the seven systems specified in the PWS?

Answer: In Attachment 9, the historical workload estimate for Functional and Technical Training supported five of the seven systems, with the exception of GCCS and GATES;

the estimates for the remaining areas (Process Support, Enterprise Capabilities, Administration and Fielding Support, Mission Systems Testing Support, and Transition (Phase-In)) supported all seven systems. The workload estimates and documentation in the document library are provided as an aid. The Government’s expectation is industry will provide a new approach using best value.

15. Reference: PWS paragraph 8.3 states, "All personnel must comply with DoD 8570.01-M, Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program and must provide certifications prior to period of performance start date contract award."

In DoD 8570.01-M, paragraphs C3.2.4.1.1., C4.2.3.2., C10.2.3.2., C11.2.4.1.1., and C11.2.4.1.3 state that new personnel or new hires must be certified within a period of 6 months to fulfill the referenced IA roles.

Question: Would it be appropriate to modify the wording in PWS paragraph 8.3 to match the requirements of DoD 8570.01-M?

Answer: PWS paragraph 8.3 will be modified to reflect exceptions to DoD 8570.01-M.

See Amendment 0001 and revised PWS, dated August 22, 2008, Attachment 1 to solicitation.

16. Reference FA4452-08-R-0001, Subsections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI), page 17. This section states that “The Contractor must maintain an OCI Identification and Mitigation Plan (OIMP) acceptable to the Contracting Officer.”

Furthermore, it states “The Contractor must provide a draft revision of its plan to the contracting officer 30 days prior to any anticipated change, and such change must be negotiated and incorporated into the contract prior to implementation of a change.”

Taking the direction from this section, it is clear that a baseline OIMP must be submitted to the Government in order to ensure a) an acceptable compliant OIMP exists, and b) the Government has the ability to compare future negotiated change requests to a baseline OIMP. However, there is no requirement to deliver the OIMP in section L. Considering the critical nature of the OIMP as it applies to this contract, does the Government want an OIMP delivered as part of the proposal?

Answer: See #7 above. Sections L and M updated to address OCI Identification and Mitigation Plan (OIMP) instructions and evaluation. The OIMP, if required, shall be submitted with technical proposal, and has been added to Section L, Table 1.2.

17. Reference FA4452-08-R-0001 Section I, page 53, FAR 52.204-8: Paragraphs (a) (1) and (a) (2) lists NAICS 541512 and its size standard for small businesses. We request that paragraph (a) (2) also allow the use of NAICS 517110 (a primary NAICS for the USAF NETCENTS IDIQ). Elements of the PWS, such as those that address deployable network topologies and connectivity, programmatic and system architecture, and security clearly utilize the expertise embodied by NAICS 517110.

Answer: NAICS Code 541512 was determined the most appropriate to fit the overall AISS requirement. FAR 52.204-8 will remain unchanged.

18. Reference FA4452-08-R-0001, Section L, paragraph 1.6, page 68. RFP states that the proposal “shall be mailed” to Mr. Matt Bowen. Are we allowed to hand deliver the boxed proposal to Mr. Bowen’s designated location at 507 Symington Drive, Scott AFB, IL?

Answer: Section L, paragraph 1.6, updated to allow proposals to be hand delivered to Mr. Bowen, 507 Symington Drive, Room W202, Scott AFB, IL.

19. Reference: The Staffing Plan and the Transition Plan requirements reference two generic DIDs that seem to have several sections that are not applicable to the particular type of plan.

Question: Can you specify which paragraphs in the applicable DIDs that are mandatory to provide in our attached Staffing and Transition Plans? ... and do you have an example outline for these plans?

Answer: The only DID paragraphs not required by A001 are paragraphs 10.2.8 and 10.2.10.

20. Reference: Reference: PWS 8.2.1: This paragraph cites the requirement "The Contractor must maintain an OCI Identification and Mitigation Plan (OIMP) acceptable to the Contracting Officer."

Question: Is the plan due upon contract award?

Answer: OIMP is due with technical proposal, if required. See answer to #16 above.

21. Reference: PWS Exhibit A: There are three references to CDRLs requiring monthly reports (A002/A003/A007). A002 and A007 seem to be duplicative since they both seem to be monthly status reports (MSRs).

Question: Is one of the CDRLs cited in error? If not, please explain the difference between the two monthly status reports.

Answer: These are not duplicate requirements. These documents are driven by different events plus require different levels of detail.

22. Reference: RFP page 66, Section L, paragraph 1.2.3, Table 1.2 - Proposal Organization, and paragraph 4.2. These requirements call for a Past Performance Questionnaire and provide that the questionnaire is to be sent to the PPIS POCs for completion and submission directly to the SSET, Attn: Matt Bowen. Table 1.2 calls for the Past Performance Questionnaires to be included in Vol III of the proposal.

Question: Do you want the Questionnaires in the proposal even though they will be blank, or do you want a Past Performance Questionnaire Log indicating we have sent the

Questionnaires to the PPIS POCs for completion, identifying who we sent them to, and when, along with a copy of the Performance Questionnaire Letter we sent them?

Answer: We want the Questionnaire log only. Section L, Table 1.2, is revised to delete the requirements for the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires and the Performance Questionnaire Letter, and is revised to add the requirement for the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire Log. Section L, paragraph 4.2, is updated to provide instructions for completing the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire Log.

23. Reference: RFP page 74, Section L, paragraph 6.1.3 Section C – Descriptions and Specifications – Performance Work Statement – Exhibit A, Contract Data Requirements List, DD Forms 1423: This paragraph states: "Provide estimated cost in Block 18 for each CDRL item, in accordance with DFARS 215.470(a)." Cost information is usually provided by CLIN as is required in Section B of this solicitation, and not by CDRL.

Additionally, there is no Block 18 on the CDRL form.

Questions:

Are you requiring cost information by both CLIN and CDRL?

Answer: Yes. We are requesting price estimates only for each of the CDRLs. Estimates are required, in accordance with DFARS 215.470, Estimated Data Prices, in order to evaluate the cost to the Government of data items in terms of their management, product, or engineering value.

Since there is no block 18 on the CDRL form, where do you want this information to be provided?

Answer: Block 18 is located on the far right-hand margin of each DD Form 1423.