ITCC__II_Q A_20141017.pdf

ITCC II Final RFP Q&A Ref # Document / Page # / Section Document Citation Question

1. J_attachment 15 Instructions tab, Instruction #1

If we need to alter the spreadsheet, are we precluded from changing anything other than yellow shaded cells?

Response: See Instructions tab, item #1 and #3. Yes, you may change the model but must tell what changes are made.

2. J_attachment 15

Instructions tab, Instruction #8 If the FTEs are not the same as the prior year should this be documented as a change and noted per Instruction #1?

Response: Documenting the reason for FTE changes that are different from the prior year is not required within the cost model. However, fluctuations in FTEs without a technical approach explanation in Volume I, Technical/Risk, could create the potential for higher risk ratings.

3. J_attachment 15 Instructions tab, Instruction #9

If the escalation is calculated differently should this be documented as a change and noted per Instruction #1?

Response: Yes.

4. J_attachment 15

Instructions tab, Instruction #12

The annual hours used to calculate the Billable hours per year should not also be used to calculate the Direct Labor cost as indicated in “Loading Factors”, row 25 as this can double count VAHoLS hours which is covered in row 10 and misrepresent the wrap rate.

Response: Wrap rate calculation has been removed from the Model. If this does not resolve, please define VAHoLS and resubmit with clarification.

5. J_attachment 15

Instructions tab, Instruction #13 and

FA4600-14-R-0017

Instructions state a requirement for a DCAA/DCMA approved system but the FAR Reference states that the vendor’s EVMS complies with the EVMS ANSI/EIA-748 guidelines. Please confirm the EVMS must comply in accordance with the FAR reference cited.

Response: Instructions tab updated to state “The contractor must have an Accounting System approved by DCAA/DCMA and an acceptable Earned Value Management System (EVMS) IAW DFARS 252.234-7002. DCAA/DCMA POC information must be entered on the Loading Factors sheet.”

6. J_attachment 15 Instructions tab, Instruction #13 and

FA4600-14-R-0017

Where should contractors include its EVMS plan so as not to be considered against any page limitations?

Response: No EVMS Plan is requested as part of an offeror’s response to this solicitation. An EVMS Plan will be requested by the Government only if, during the performance of this contract, an individual project meets the EVMS threshold and the Program Manager notifies the contractor of the requirement. DFARS 252.234-7001 is removed from the solicitation to avoid further confusion. H-clause 48 and PWS paragraph 3.1.1 are also revised.

7. J_attachment 15 FA4600-14-R-0017 252.234-7002

EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

(MAY 2011)

Contract Performance Reports (CPRs) has been referenced in this section. Those formats have been replaced by the Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) formats. Will the government revise accordingly and specify which of the seven formats are required and for which CLINS of the contract the application of EVMS applies to?

Response: EVMS is not required until the Program Manager(PM) notifies the contractor of the requirement. However, all reports must meet EVM standards as outlined on the CDRLs.

8. J_attachment 15

Instructions tab, Instruction #24

“Overtime for labor category rates is 1.5 times the straight time rate.” Is the 1.5 multiplier included in the price evaluation calculation, and if so, where?

Response: It is not. If using overtime, use the same labor category but use a labor rate at 1.5x the original and insert the number of overtime hours on that line.

9. J_attachment 15

Instructions tab, Instruction #31

Small businesses may not have crossed the TCV $ threshold causing them to be subject to CAS covered and thus not subject to a DCAA approved accounting system. Does this instruction preclude small businesses not subject to CAS to be precluded from supporting non- FFP CLINs?

Response: Small businesses that are not subject to CAS may still perform as subcontractors on non-FFP CLINs. There are a variety of subcontractual arrangements that the prime could enter into with its small business sub (Labor Hour, T&M, etc) that would not require the sub to issue a cost proposal.

10. J_attachment 15 Loading Factors tab, Rows 20-22

Are the fee Targets, Min and Max provided on the Loading Factors tab proscribed by the RFP or can vendors change these %?

Response: The Min and Max percentages are fixed IAW Attachment 1, Incentive Fee Plan and may not be changed.

11. Paragraph M3.2.2.2.1 on page

242 of the solicitation Paragraph M3.2.2.2.1 on page 242 of the solicitation asks the Offeror to demonstrate services in an environment of at least 7,500 network end user devices. Is it the Government’s intent to strictly limit this quantity to desktops and peripheral devices? Can mobile devices count towards this requirement? If a physical device has more than one IP address, is that device counted as a single device or multiple devices?

Response: The Government’s evaluation team will rely on the interpretation of the individual (COR or Contracting Officer) completing the past performance reference.

12. The Attachment 10 sample cover letter for Past Performance Questionnaires

The Attachment 10 sample cover letter for Past Performance Questionnaires does not have the same names/e-mails as referenced in paragraph L3.2.4 on page 228 of 246 of the solicitation for the Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record. Can the Government please confirm that Mr. Philson and Ms. Simons are the correct points of contact?

Response: Mr. Philson and Ms. Simons are the correct POCs, and the attachment will be updated in the next amendment. Any Questionnaires already received by Mr. Manke and Mr. Philson do not require re-submission.

13. Does an IDIQ contract with multiple Task Orders count as one Past Performance program or must a single task order on an IDIQ contract count as one Past Performance program?

Response: Past performance on ID/IQ type contracts shall be submitted at the delivery/task order level, unless performance is only assessed for the ID/IQ contract as a whole. In that case, the offeror shall explain that performance on individual orders is not assessed and provide the using activity’s single point of contact that can verify the Offeror’s performance. For all ID/IQ contracts, submit only the dollar values on the individual task orders regardless of whether past performance is assessed for individual task orders or for the contract as a whole. For past performance references submitted at the delivery/task order level, each delivery/task order submitted shall be counted as one reference.

14. What version of Avaya Call Distribution is currently installed, configured, and operational?

Response: Version 2.4.7.

15. Are Avaya call metrics currently integrated within Remedy for SLA monitoring/escalation?

Response: No, Avaya call metrics are not integrated into Remedy.

16. Has a knowledge database been established within Remedy or in some other tool?

Response: No.

17. Are there any Self Service Capabilities currently implemented (e.g. automated password reset)?

Response: No, however UNCLASS and SECRET network users all use Common Access Cards (CAC) or tokens to access the network, so passwords resets are rarely required on these networks.

18. Paragraph L1.13.8 states “Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.” Can the Government please confirm that tabs are only required at the levels defined in L2.1, L3.2, L.4, and L.5? Also, must tabbed sections start on a new page (which would require hard page breaks between sections)?

Response: The level of tabbing questioned is acceptable. There is no requirement for hard page breaks between sections within a volume.

19. Cells BH24 and BH25 in the Summary Tab of the Pricing Model spreadsheet have hardcoded values that match the values in Table L8 and Table L9 in paragraph L4.2 of the solicitation.

However, the total in cell BH26 is incorrect. Can the Government please verify that the values in cells BH24 and BH25 are correct despite the incorrect total?

Response: The values in BH24 and BH25 are correct. BH26 is updated to display the correct value.

20. PWS Paragraph 4.1, New

Headquarters Building In reference to PWS Paragraph 4.1, New

Headquarters Building Transition, the PWS

Transition states that the exact technology and vendor products of the new building have yet to be determined. It also states that the IT for the new building will be designed, installed, and integrated by SPAWAR. Will SPAWAR be conducting these activities exclusively or will the ITCC II contractor be required to support these activities and, if so, how?

Response: SPAWAR will be exclusively responsible for design, installation, and integration activities for the new building.

21. Section J, Attachment 15

Contractor Cost Price Model.

Summary worksheet, cell BH26.

Six Month Extension: Formula in cell BH26 = BC26/2 = $16M. Summation of cells BH20 through BH25 = $9M. This affects the Government Populated CLINs Total Cost.

Please clarify total value of Government Populated CLINs for Six Month Extension. Is it $16M or $9M?

Response: See Answer 19.

22. Section J, Attachment 15

Contractor Cost Price Model.

Summary worksheet, cells BH24 and BH25.

FAA4600-14-00171, Section B

– Supplies or Services and Prices

Six Month Extension: Government Populated values for Expansion Taskings CLINs E700 and E800.

The Contractor Cost Price Model includes values of $1.5M each for CLINs E700 and E800.

FAA4600-14-00171, Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices does not list these two CLINs. Please clarify if these CLINs will be included in Section B.

Response: CLINs added to Section B in Amendment.

23. Section J, Attachment 09, PP

Information Document.

Section H. states: “For each of the applicable relevancy criteria under paragraph M3.2.2.3 in Section M, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that criteria.”

Should the paragraph reference be M3.2.2.2?

Response: Yes. Reference updated as part of Amendment.

24. Attachment_15,_Contractor_Co st/Price_Model_WBr_S_Templa te

N/A Please confirm that the government wants us to print only the summary tab from the Price Workbook, and does not require hard copy of all tabs in the Price Workbook. There are about 60 pages per tab (600 pages total) just for the prime's data. This volume will be multiplied by the number of teammates (so 10 teammates would result in more than 6,000 hard copy pages, for example)

Response: As part of the Amendment, the hard copy requirements are clarified in Table L2 of Section L.

25. Section J, Attachment 20, Wage

Determination N/A The Government provided Wage Determination

#2005-2325 Rev 13 Dated 6-19-13 for the RFP, however, this Wage Determination was revised (WD #2005-2325 Rev 14 dated 7-25-14). Please confirm which version we are to use and, if the latter, please provide a copy with the RFP.

Response: Attachment updated as part of Amendment.

26. Section J, Attachment 15, Contractor Cost/Price Model L2.4.2. Provide a skillset matrix that identifies education, certification, and experience for each position. The Cost/Price Model, Section J, Attachment 15, Tab “Certifications” shall be used as a part of the evaluation.

Please confirm that the skillset matrix found in the "Certifications" tab of Attachment 15 should not appear in Volume I since it is part of the pricing model.

Response: Confirmed. The skillset matrix is not part of Volume I.

27. Section H, page 158, para 37 Regarding Service Contract Act (SCA) employees the language states "The Service Contract Act is applicable to this contract; however, if wage rate increases are applied to labor rates used on this contract, CLIN prices shall not increase as a result of wage rate increases."

Is it the Government's intent that the contractor not escalate SCA wages?

Response: It is the Government’s intent that CLIN prices will not be adjusted as a result of SCA wage escalations. Actual compensation to SCA employees must comply with all applicable clauses.

28. Attachment 15 On the tab "Loading Factors" rows 20-22, the target, min, and max fee are all pre-populated and locked. Is it the Government's intention that these incentive fees are to remain unchanged?

Response: Yes, see question 10, above.

29. Attachment 15 On the tab "Loading Factors" rows 26, the wrap rate is not auto calculating? Will the government update the tab in order for the wrap rate to auto calculate?

Response: The wrap rate calculation is removed as part of the Amendment.

30. Attachment 15 On the tabs "Baseline Labor (FFP), Platinum to

Gold (CLIN X100), Silver to Bronze (CLIN

X100), UNCLASS NETWORK SERV(CLIN

X100), CCSS (FFP CLIN X202), column B is labeled Direct Rate.

Is it the Government's intention that this is to be the fully burdened rate through fee?

Response: Yes, the model is updated to read “Fully Burdened Rate” instead of “Direct Rate”.

31. Attachment 15 On the tab "ENGINEERING (CPIF CLIN

X101)" the Fringe rate in the Base Year picks up the Fringe rate from Option Year 1 on Tab "Loading Factors".

Can the Government alter both the "Loading Factors" and "ENGINEERING (CPIF CLIN X101)" worksheets to allow for a Base Period Fringe and overhead rate?

Response: This is fixed as part of the Amendment.

32. Attachment 15 On the tab "Instructions" row 35 it reads "Primes shall manually fill in SUB Labor category, hours, fully burdened rate and type of contract."

Since the labor worksheets do not have columns for all of this information will the Governemnt expand on where they would like the prime contractor to manually add the subcontractors and in what format?

Response: The Government does not require a specific format, as long as it is clearly stated. One potential solution is to use the same worksheet with color coding for subs. The password lock on the summary tab has been removed in the newest version to allow for this.

33. M How is the fixed fee on the stated CPFF future work going to be evaluated?

Response: IAW M3.3.3, the Government will evaluate whether the fee is fair and reasonable.

34. PWS, 3.2.7.3. 1) Manage warehousing and logistics for all

USSTRATCOM IT required to sustain and Would the government provide logistics workload data, eg: quantity of transactions per enhance the command’s existing and future infrastructure year and quantity of line items in the warehouse.

Response: This data is provided in the Read Library.

35. For CLIN 0500, the value specified in the B-

Tables is $4,500,000. However, Table L6 on Page 232 of the RFP specifies this value as $6,000,000, which is also the value contained in the Cost/Price Spreadsheet when the 3-month Phase In and 9-Month Base Period values are added together. Can the Government please confirm that the B-Table value for CLIN **0500 is incorrect and should be $6,000,000?

Response: See Response 19.

36. Table L8 on Page 233 of the solicitation specifies a value of $1,500,000 for the 6-month extension for CLIN X700, which is consistent with the value contained in Cell BH24 in the Summary Tab in the Cost/Price Spreadsheet.

However, the B-Tables appear to exclude the CLIN, presumably E700, for this effort. Can the Government please confirm that CLIN E700 is missing from the B Tables and, if so, can you please provide the appropriate text?

Response: See Response 24.

37. J_attachment 15 Loading Factors tab, Yellow shaded cells Most, but not all, of the factors shaded yellow do not drive any calculations. Should they be fixed to calculate formulas similar to the factors in row 9 that have dependents?

Response: Most of the shaded yellow cells do drive calculations on the Engineering tab.

38. RFP / page 174/ Section I -

252.227-7020 Rights in Special Works

The Government’s response to question #6 under Q&A-4 provided the following: “DFARS 252.227-7014 should not have been included in the draft RFP. The clause will be deleted in the next iteration of the RFP. ”

Please confirm that the referenced clause will be deleted via an Amendment to RFP.

Response: The Government erred in its previous response. Upon further review, DFARS 252.227-7020 is removed via the Amendment.

DFARS 252.227-7014 remains in Section I.

39. RFP/Page 90/4.1 NEW

HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

TRANSITION

RFP asks contractor to “provide technical, engineering, and labor as required for the move”, which is open ended. Is it the Government’s intent that ‘as required’ support shall pertain only to the IT functions associated with the move?

Response: Yes.

40. RFP/Page 90/4.1 NEW

HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

TRANSITION

RFP requires that the contractor “perform all warehouse and logistics functions for all IT coming into the new headquarters building.

Processing (unpacking, barcoding, entering into Remedy, etc.) of incoming hardware/software/equipment must be done IAW the BASS so equipment is available for implementation by SPAWAR. Please confirm the Government will provide a single location for this function.

Response: Space will be made available. If the warehouse becomes full, alternate on-base space will be used.

41. DD1423-

2_CDRL_A023_Appendix_Met rics/2 – Metric Table/ Application/Service Availability

– 1st row

Is there currently a system used to gather end-to-end availability and if so what is that system?

Response: No, there is not.

42. DD1423-

2_CDRL_A023_Appendix_Met rics/3 – Metric Table/ Application/Service Workload & Performance – 1-3 rows

Is there an automated system that performs the application sampling, logging, and calculations?

Response: There are a couple of tools that can be used to monitor MPAS applications and services. VCenter is used for applications that are running in a VMWare environment. In addition, a tool called 123 Log Analyzer is also used for application monitoring. For the other systems, the answer is no there is not an automated system.

43. DD1423-

2_CDRL_A023_Appendix_Met database sampling, logging, and calculations?

rics/3 & 4 – Metric Table/Application/Service Workload&Performance (database) – 1-4 rows

Response: No, there is not.

44. DD1423-

2_CDRL_A023_Appendix_Met rics/5 – Metric Table/Application/Service Workload & Performance (cross domain) – 1-4 rows cross domain sampling, logging, and calculations?

Response: No, there is not.

45. DD1423-

2_CDRL_A023_Appendix_Met rics / 8 – Metric Table / Continuity of Operations – 1-3 rows data replication sampling, logging, and calculations?

Response: No, there is not.

46. J_attachment 15 / Summary Tab

/ Cell BH26 The sum of Government populated plug numbers for the 6 month option period totals $9,000,000, but $16,000,000 is populated in cell BH26. Please confirm that cell BH26 should read $9,000,000.

Response: Confirmed. The calculation is updated in the Amendment.

47. Reference L3.2.4 “To avoid potential conflicts, offerors are exempt from sending Past and Present Performance Questionnaires to other potential competitors of this acquisition. In this situation, it is the offeror’s responsibility to find an alternative method of providing the Government the same or similar information.”

In other circumstance where a client, even a Federal Government client, declines to respond to required questionnaires (notably DHS will no longer respond to past performance questionnaires), will the Government also allow offerors to find an alternative method of providing the Government the same or similar information?

Response: No, it is not necessary for the offerors to find an alternative method for the example provided. IAW L3.2.4, the offeror is required to distribute the questionnaire packages, exert its best efforts to ensure the Questionnaire is submitted, and provide the tracking record to the Government; the Government will take follow-up actions as needed, which could include contacting any POC’s identified in the tracking record who failed to submit a Questionnaire, reviewing relevant CPARS, etc.

48. Reference L3.2.4 “To avoid potential conflicts, offerors are exempt from sending Past and Present Performance Questionnaires to other potential competitors of this acquisition. In this situation, it is the offeror’s responsibility to find an alternative method of providing the Government the same or similar information.”

Where the offeror has a CPAR for a reference and that reference will not complete a questionnaire, would an acceptable ‘alternative method of providing the Government the same or similar information’ be extracts from that CPAR in the questionnaire’s format?

Response: See Response 47.

49. Reference L3.2.4 Several Federal Government offices, notably all of the Department of Homeland Security, have indicated that they will not complete questionnaires in compliance with OMB guidance. Given the contradictory positions of these offices in apparent efforts to comply with OMB and the requirements of this RFP, how are offerors to make reference to potentially highly relevant and valuable experience in the context of the Past Performance evaluation?

Response: See Response 47.

50. M1.3 “If, however, the lowest TEP does not present the optimal best value, the Government reserves the right to conduct a trade-off between that offer and the offer with the next lowest TEP that presents Substantial Confidence and Low Technical Risk in all sub-factors, if the higher TEP does not exceed the lowest TEP by more than five percent (5 %) of the lowest TEP and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines the tradeoff to be in the best interest of the Government. In its sole discretion, the Government reserves the right to exceed the (5%) price differential if a higher priced offer outside of that boundary presents a remarkably better value proposal in terms of its past performance record and/or plan for dealing

The Government’s inclusion of ‘plug’ numbers in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) could quite dramatically impact the dollar value of a 5% difference between offerors – perhaps more than doubling the percentage impact relative to the portion of TEP under the offeror’s control. Is it the Government’s intent that the 5% difference referenced in M1.3 actually be the TEP exclusive of the evaluation plug values?

with, mitigating or eliminating program risk.”

Response: The 5% reference intentionally includes the TEP for all CLINs, as that is the total price that the Government can reasonably expect to pay over the life of the contract.

51. DD1423-

2__CDRLs_A025_A026_ITCC

_II

A025- Quality Assurance Plan for Command and Control Switching Systems (CCSS)

Items 10 - 16: Delivery of the first report 30 days after contract award to the Contracting Officer for review and approval.

A026- Contractor Property Management Plan for Command and Control Switching Systems

(CCSS):

Items 10 - 16: Delivery of the first report 30 days after contract start to the Contracting Officer for review and approval.

The Command and Control Switching Systems (CCSS) work scope is an optional task. Please clarify if the delivery dates for these CDRLs are tied to the exercising of the CCSS Optional task.

Response: Because CDRL’s are separately priced under their own CLIN (X999), a removal of a CDRL would require a bilateral agreement between the Government and the contractor. If, however, the Government elects to unilaterally not exercise an optional task, it is extremely likely that the Government would also pursue bilaterally removing any associated CDRL’s.

ITCC II Final RFP Q&A