Q_and_A_from_Industry_Round_2.docx

Responses to Questions from Industry (Round 2)

Q1. Is there a page limit for the key personnel resumes required by the RFP?

A1. IAW RFP page 71, section 1.2.1, page limitations, resumes of key personnel shall be excluded from the page count.

Q2. May we assume that key personnel resumes may be submitted as a separate appendix, and that these pages do not count against the 40 page limit for the Technical/Risk Volume?

A2. Yes.

Q3. Under the Relevant and Somewhat Relevant criteria, the Government has indicated references in this area are “Recent DoD experience” versus Very Relevant which indicates the experience is directly related to the MAF C2, ITV or Business Systems. We have the following questions;

1. Since Relevant and Somewhat Relevant are directed towards overall DOD experience versus specific MAF C2 systems why is the first bullet (The Mobility Air Force (MAF) C2, ITV or Business Systems) stated at all? This requirement is covered in the Very Relevant.

2. Since Relevant and Somewhat Relevant are directed towards overall DOD experience versus specific MAF C2 systems why is the third bullet (LAN/WAN network communication support within TACC, AMC and/or USTC) worded this way? Stating TACC, AMC and USTC as specific organizations significantly narrows down relevant DOD experience as stated for Relevant and Somewhat Relevant. We recommend that this area for Relevant and Somewhat Relevant read as “LAN/WAN network communication support.”

A3.

1. The very relevant definition makes it mandatory to demonstrate recent DOD experience and expertise in MAF C2, ITV, or Business Systems in addition to recent DOD experience and expertise in four or more of the areas listed under the very relevant rating (a total of five areas). The Government is not making experience in MAF C2, ITV, or Business Systems mandatory in either of the relevant or somewhat relevant ratings. Rather, the Government simply wanted to provide offerors with an opportunity to show that they had MAF C2, ITV, or Business Systems experience and expertise in addition to the other areas necessary to achieve either a relevant or somewhat relevant rating if they desired (a total of four and three areas respectively).

2. The offeror only needs to demonstrate recent DOD experience and expertise in four or more of the areas listed under relevant and three or more of the areas listed under somewhat relevant. “LAN/WAN network communication support within TACC, AMC, and/or USTC” is only one of the available areas. The Government does not intend to revise the relevancy ratings.

Q4. Will G&A expenses on approved travel be allowed?

A4. Travel will be paid under a cost reimbursable CLIN. The Government does not expect the offerors to bid travel; however, the offerors will need to propose a G&A Rate to be evaluated when they submit their proposal if they intend to include G&A expense in approved travel.

Q5. Would the Government consider leaving the bidder’s library open throughout the RFP process? This would allow teams to search for additional answers as questions arise.

A5. No, the Government does not intend to leave the bidder’s library open or to re-open the bidder’s library.

Q6. Would the Government consider providing relevant labor hour/staffing historical data?

A6. The Government does not intend to provide workload date aside from what was included in the bidder’s library. The Government specifically chose this data as it was most reflective of the COM-F II required level of effort.

Q7. Can the Government provide some type of historical manpower data on exercises supported or surges for contingencies?

A7. The Government does not anticipate any surges for exercises or contingencies.

Q8. Can the Government provide the number of configuration items managed by system?

A8. This information was available in the bid library.

Q9. Can the Government provide a list of the asset management tools currently being used?

A9. The Air Force tool currently being used is Information Technology Account Management (ITAM)

Q10. Can the Government reveal the number of physical configuration audits performed in a typical month/quarter/year by system?

A10. AFI 33-112 mandates an annual physical inventory that begins 1 March and must be completed by 30 April.

Q11. Do all documents shown at the library review belong to the Government, such as the various plans which might be over 100 pages for one system? Will these documents be available to the winning bidder?

A11. Yes, they are Government documents and will be supplied to the wining bidder.

Q12. Per the PWS, page 7 under section 2.1.1 Contract Deliverables. A011 - Help Desk Procedures will be provided. Since the Help Desk has been around for several years will the Government provide the existing Help Desk procedures or will the winning contractor be expected to create them from scratch?

A12. The Government currently has in place a fairly fine-tuned process using Remedy Macros to capture pertinent user and systems information. The winning contractor does not have to start from scratch; however, there are currently not formal written procedures to be turned over to the winning contractor. The winning contractors help desk procedures are not due on day 1 of the awarded contract. Per CDRL A011, a draft is due 5 days after contract start.

Q13. Will travel to the DECC St Louis be reimbursable to the contractor? Can the Government reveal how often contractor personnel will travel to DECC St Louis?

A13. IAW PWS 14.1.1 the Government will not reimburse for local travel which is defined as travel within 50 miles or less one- way from Scott AFB IL. COM-F currently has employed a set schedule to visit the DECC once a week.

Q14. In the PWS, under 2.1.4 it states the contractor shall provide inventory control of the hardware for the systems located at DECC St Louis. Will this area be secured as it's not normally manned and serves as a backup location?

A14. DECC STL is a secure DISA facility. CAC (to enter the site) and a current Visitor’s Request on file is required for entry into a controlled area (i.e. the Computer Room where GATES is housed)

Q15. In the PWS, 2.1.5 it states that the contractor must provide a Customer Satisfaction Measurement Plan within 30 calendar days. Does a system exist today to capture the contractor's ability to measure customer satisfaction? Is the current contractor providing this measurement?

A15. The current contractor is providing this measurement; however, there is no formal system to be handed over to the winning contractor.

Q16. In the PWS, 2.2.1 can the Government please define journeyman qualifications supporting the Help Desk? There are multiple definitions of what is considered a journeyman to include an Air Force technical definition.

A16. Journeyman is defined on page 46 of the PWS.

Q17. Can the Government provide the number of personnel providing Help Desk service today in the 24/7/365 environment to include supervision?

A17. No, the Govenrment does not intend to release this informaion.

Q18. It is unclear when the published Help Desk procedures are due to the Government and if they currently exist today? Can the Government please provide clarification on whether the Help Desk procedures are due on day one and if they exist today? If they exist, are they the property of the Government?

A18. See the response to Q13

Q19. In the PWS, 2.2.4 it states the DBA services have a need to routinely upgrade skills in order to meet changing database applications. The contractor shall keep pace with system and operational environment changes by ensuring it has the appropriate skill sets available. This indicates the contractor should have a bench of expertise and most small businesses cannot support a bench. Would the Government consider removing this requirement?

A19. The Government is only trying to indicate to the contractor that they are expected to stay current with the latest industry standard.

Q20. In the PWS, 2.2.4 it states the contractor must back up, cluster, mirror, replicate, and failover assigned databases. Can the Government divulge how many databases are located at DECC St. Louis?

A20. This information was included in the bidder’s library.

Q21. Why is PWS Section 2.2.5 (Web Site/Page Support) omitted from the Technical subfactors?

A21. The Government did not consider this to be a technical discriminator during the development of the RFP evaluation criteria.

Q22. Will the evaluation of the relevancy of each past performance citation include Web Site/Page Support?

A22. The evaluation of relevancy will include information that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price taking into consideration their relative order of importance. The information that is relevant to the Technical subfactors includes the areas listed in Past Performance Relevancy Ratings definitions table listed on pages 84 and 85 of the RFP.

Q23. How will the relevancy of each past performance citation be evaluated against the Price factor?

A23. This evaluation is, by its nature, subjective; and therefore, business judgment will be implicit in this decision. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Q24. Regarding relevancy, will each past performance citation be evaluated against all of the Technical subfactors or only against the subset shown in Table 4?

A24. See the response to Q23