Questions_and_Answers_20190724.pdf

Question

Question:

Will the Government please clarify if the Offeror should resubmit the signed SF33 for Section L5.2.1 and Section L5.3.1 or is a reference to the signed SF33 in Section L 5.1.1 acceptable?

Answer:

The reference does not establish an additional requirement for duplicates of the signed SF33. The reference does ensure that the Government can unilaterally award each of these two initial task orders after the IDIQ is awarded.

Question:

Considering the Government's response to Pre-Solicitation Question 418, has the Government decided whether offerors can include non-labor transition expenses in CLIN 0011 or are offerors directed to include non-labor transition costs in CLIN X016, which is part of the TEP?

Answer: Offerors shall include non-labor transition costs in CLIN X016.

Question:

In accordance with H-5, Commercial Computer Software Licenses, offerors are requested to provide the Government copies of the licenses concurrent with the proposal submission. With respect to Task Orders 01 and 02, should offerors provide these licenses under Section L5.1.4 Section H, Special Contract Requirements?

Answer: The licenses would be provided in proposal Volume 3.

Question:

Reference L4.3.8.2 which states, “The offeror shall propose the rates for target profit and ceiling that will be applied against all orders with FPIF line items.”

Please specify how the Target profit and ceiling will be used in FPIF calculations.

Answer:

Reference M3.9.8 Model High-Dollar Materials CLINs 0007 and 1007 Pricing will be evaluated as the ceiling price based on a Government-populated Target Cost of $25,000,000. (reference L4.3.8.2)

Ceiling Price = $25,000,000 x proposed ceiling percentage

Question:

L.4.3.8.2 directs the offeror to propose the target profit and ceiling for FPIF line items. The ceiling price cannot be known until after the relevant Task Order Request is released. Will the Government please confirm that the request is for the Target Profit, Overrun, and Underrun share ratios instead? If not, will the Government please clarify how offerors are to propose a ceiling for yet undefined/unknown task orders?

Answer:

Reference Section G of the solicitation, CLIN 0007 (page 14 & 15 of 91) and CLIN 1007 (page 16 of 91). These items state:

In accordance with FAR 52.216-16, all Fixed-Price Incentive (Firm Target) line items shall use the following structure:

Target Profit [expressed as a percentage of target cost]: ____% Ceiling [expressed as a percentage of target cost]: ____% Overrun Adjustment [reference FAR 52.216-16(d)(2)(ii)]: Gov't 25% / Contractor 75% Underrun Adjustment [reference FAR 52.216-16(d)(2)(iii)]: Gov't 25% / Contractor 75%

6 Question:

To ensure compliance with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR 120-130) and Export Administrative Regulations (EAR) will the contractor be required deliver commodities, technical data, or defense services subject to these regulations to other non-U.S. persons?

If the contractor will be required to deliver commodities, defense articles, or defense services to a non-U.S. person, can the Government identify the specific tasks for Task Orders 01 and 02 under which the contractor will be required to deliver commodities, defense articles, or defense services and the non-US entities they will be delivered to?

Answer: No, the contractor will not be required to deliver commodities, technical data or other defense services to other non-U.S. persons.

Question:

Reference RFP Attachment 09c -- Task Order 01 - Transition and Sustainment Performance Requirements Summary

This attachment includes JET data distribution software maintenance in the RedHat Linux (non-HPC) Production and Development/Test systems. Please identify the bidder's library location of the technical data needed to propose for this scope. Offerors cannot develop a realistic basis of estimate without appropriate level of technical data.

Answer:

The Government will update Attachment 09c. The awardee will not maintain JET software applications. Since JET distribution is already part of the virtual services listing in 09c, the Government removed this item from the attachment.

Question:

Reference RFP Attachment 09c -- Task Order 01 - Transition and Sustainment Performance Requirements Summary

"Software" maintenance type is specified for all Virtual Services. Software running inside the VMs such as Oracle DBs is currently a 2 WXG responsibility.

Please validate the scope of Virtual Service(s) covers only Hardware and System Admin maintenance for hypervisors and VMs.

Answer: The Government will update Attachment 09c. The awardee will not maintain software in Virtual Services.

Question:

Reference RFP Attachment 09c -- Task Order 01 - Transition and Sustainment Performance Requirements Summary ESS is mapped to HW and Sys Admin in AIX and RHEL, but it inlcudes SW in Oracle (Sun) production. COTS applications and embedded operating systems for ESS are covered within Sys Admin.

Please validate the scope of ESS covers only Hardware and System Admin maintenance.

Answer: The Government will update Attachment 09c. The awardee will perform Hardware maintenance and systems administration services for ESS.

10 Question:

Reference RFP Attachment 09c -- Task Order 01 - Transition and Sustainment Performance Requirements Summary

DP2G software baselines are running on LSV, HSV and DTIG servers, which are included in the HW SW List of Supported Items v1.0 in the bidders library. 2GDP software maintenance is included for Dev/Test, so production software maintenance appears to be an inconsistency. BOLT is not considered part of other listed baselines and is currently supported by SEMS. SWAFS was added in draft RFP#4, which is inconsistent with Industry Day #2 Govt indicated their intent was to award a separate SWAFS Sustainment task order.

Please validate the scope of RHEL Production does not include 2GDP and BOLT software maintenance, and does include the SWAFS software baseline.

Answer:

The Government will update Attachment 09c. BOLT is not considered to be a subsystem and is therefore not listed in 09c, but it must be sustained under the sustainment task order. BOLT is a software application. SWAFS is only identified on the TADS Sustainment Task Order for hardware and systems administration.

SWAFS sustainment services will be performed on a separate TADS task order.

Question:

Reference RFP attachment 09d -- Task Order 01 - Transition and Sustainment Contract Data Requirements List

Many of the CDRLs in Task Order 1 are coded as Distribution Statement D, "DoD and U.S. DoD contractors only." A number of the CDRLs refer to financial reports that contain accounting and cost data that is not to be shared with other DoD contractors.

Should the TO 1 CDRLs be coded Distribution Statement C?

Answer:

No, they are correctly coded. The Government must be able to provide the financial deliverables to disclosed contractors (Advisory and Assistant Services) on the Government’s staff.

Distribution Statement C authorizes distribution to all US Government agencies and their contractors.

Question:

Section L5.2.5.1 requires offerors to populate Block F on all forms DD 1423-1;

however, the instructions in Attachment 9d state, ", “Item F. Self-explanatory (to be filled in after contract award).”

Will the Government clarify which option is compliant to meet this requirement?:

Will offerors submit their proposal containing all DD 1423-1 forms with a populated Block F or do offerors provide a statement that we will populate Block F for the appropriate DD 1423-1 Forms after award and before/during performance?

Answer: Follow the solicitation directions at L5.2.5.1.

Question:

Reference L2.8.4.2 which states, “PDF documents shall be compatible with Adobe Acrobat X (10.0) or later. Do not submit any documents in PDF format that are created as "images." When creating PDF files always create to enable textual search and copy functions.”

Would the Government please confirm that fully executed documents such as the estimating system approval letter, the purchasing system acceptance letter, and other corporate documents can be provided in non-searchable PDFs?

Answer: Scanned copies of signed approval letters and documents that are not able to be provided as searchable documents may be accepted.

14 Question:

The Government previously answered Pre-Solicitation Question 545 stating that L.2.4.2 would be updated to include a statement specifying that text within figures was acceptable in Arial and Arial Narrow (no smaller than 8 point). However, L.2.4.2, dated 24 June 2019, was not updated to include this statement. Will the Government please confirm that Arial or Arial Narrow (no smaller than 8 pt) can be used for text within figures and graphics?

Answer:

The Government has verified that the L2.4.2, as posted to FedBizOpps on 10 July 2019, does contain the sentence “Embedded text shall be no smaller than 8 point Times New Roman, Arial, or Arial Narrow.”

Question:

Attachment_10b task Order 2 SOO, page 4 Section 3-GFI states:

The Government Furnished Property/Information list contains the NeuVector product.

As the product provides runtime software container security, does the Government intend to provide a container management platform as GFI?

Answer: Yes, the Government is intending on providing a container management platform as GFI.

Question:

Attachment_10b task Order 2 SOO, page 4 Section 3-GFI states:

The Government Furnished Property/Information list contains the NeuVector product.

Does the Government intend to use the OpenShift container management platform as identified on slide 10 of AFW Cloud Architecture for TADS Release.ppt in bidder’s library?

Answer: Yes, the Government intends to use the Kubernetes/OpenShift container management platform.

Question:

The Agile Epic requirement states that the effort "could be completed during the base period of performance." Will the Government please confirm that the "Base Period of Performance" refers to the entire period of performance Base Year plus 3 Option Years (4 years total)?

Answer: In context of Task Order 2 – CAF Development and Integration, the base period of performance is referring to the Base Year.

Question:

Will the Government please confirm our understanding that the Agile Epic is an optional task that the Government may or may not accept/adopt and fund with the remainder of the CAF effort?

Answer: The Government’s intent is to add the Agile Epic to the backlog and included in the agile prioritization.

Question:

If the Government chooses to adopt an offeror's Agile Epic as an additional task, does the Government expect the cost of the Agile Epic to be included as part of an offeror's cost proposal? Does the Government expect that offerors will distinguish costs associated with the Agile Epic differently than those associated with the meeting the Government's CAF SOO Objectives? (e.g. Identifying it as an optional cost)?

Answer: The Agile Epic is not a separately priced task.

Question:

Does the Government's Task Order 02 (TO 02) Budget Profile include the costs associated with implementing the Agile Epic, or is the budget profile based on meeting the Government defined CAF SOO Objectives only?

Answer: The budget profile includes the total amount available to pay for all CAF Development and Intgration tasks on TADS.

21 Question: Section L contains two paragraphs L4.4.6.3. Recommend removing the 'at least one level below' paragraph.

The WBS level is based on assessment of the cost, risk, technical or special interest of the area. Requiring adding a level to A013 may result in WBS elements values that are too small to warrant the administrative costs to segregate the effort, especially on orders where the value may be $4M a year. As an example, adding a level to data management WBS may not be viewed as value added and increases administrative costs.

Answer:

Government concurs. Section L will be updated to remove the first paragraph L4.4.6.3.

L4.4.6.3 will now read “The CWBS shall be developed to a breadth sufficient to accurately describe the offeror’s understanding of the effort required for each of the initial task orders, at a minimum down to the level provided within the DD Form 1423-1.”

Question:

L4.4.6.3 states, "CDRL A013 for each task order shall be developed to a depth of at least one level below the WBS provided within the DD Form 1423-1. For example, if Level 3 is provided in the DD Form 1423-1, then a minimum Level 4 is required in the offeror’s CWBS."

Offerors are not permitted to delete CWBS elements and are required to develop the CWBS to one level below the WBS provided. The Government has indicated both in answers to Questions, and in the Workload Estimate that there are some CWBS elements that do not have any effort associated with them, such as "2.4 Help Desk."

Will the Government confirm that in cases where there is no effort (e.g. Help Desk), that offerors are not required to develop the WBS any lower than what is provided in the CWBS template in DD Form 1423-1?

Answer:

Confirmed. Please also see answer to Question 21, which removes the instructions for developing the CWBS to at least one level below the WBS provided within the DD Form 1423-1.

Question:

L4.4.7.2 states, "For each task order, the offeror shall provide a separate list of the CWBS elements for which it is proposing no effort; for these elements, the offeror shall not include “no bid” BOEs."

Given the wording of L.4.4.7.2, is the Government stating that offerors are to submit a complete CWBS, including those items that have no effort in line with those where effort is proposed?

Answer:

Yes, the Government is requiring the offeror to submit a complete CWBS, including those items that have no effort. If the CWBS element has no effort do not submit a BOE for that element.

24 Question:

L4.4.7.2 states, "The offeror shall provide BOEs to support proposed prime contractor efforts. The offeror shall also provide BOEs to support proposed subcontractor, inter-divisional transfer or supplier, teaming partners and joint venture partners’ efforts."

Will the Government please confirm it is the intent of this requirement for Offerors to submit an integrated Prime/Subcontractor/IDT/Supplier/etc. CWBS-formatted BOE?

Answer: To the maximum extent practicable, Offerors need to submit an integrated Prime/Subcontractor/IDT/Supplier basis of estimate.

Question:

L4.4.7.2 states, "The offeror shall prepare separate BOEs at CWBS level 2 for each task order." and L4.4.6.1 states, "The offeror shall provide the initial Contract Work Breakdown Structure and CWBS Dictionary, CDRL A013. The offeror shall provide a separate CDRL..."

As CDRL A013 (L4.4.6.1) requires the submission of the CWBS in the attached Excel format, does the Government also intend that all BOE information be contained in the CWBS Excel template? Would the Government please consider allowing offerors to provide their BOE in a format other than the CWBS Excel format, so long as it is organized against the tasks laid out in the CWBS (e.g. similar to the Government's answer in Question 541)?

Answer: The RFP has no requirement for BOE information to be created using the CWBS Excel format attached to CDRL A013.

Question:

In the response to Pre-Solicitation Question 521, the Government stated, "No, the Government does not require all proposed costs to be proposed at the lowest level of each CWBS with the ability to roll-up to higher levels of the CWBS.

Proposed costs should be proposed at the lowest level of each CWBS that BOEs can be provided for."

According to L4.4.7.2, BOEs must be defined at CWBS Level 2 for each task order.

Therefore, will the Government please confirm that costs are also to be proposed at the CWBS Level 2 to align with the CWBS?

Answer:

I believe the Offeror intended to state, “please confirm that costs are also to be proposed at the CWBS Level 2 to align with the BOE.”

The proposed costs need to align with the BOEs. Proposal evaluation would be problematic if costs do not align with the BOE.

Question:

L4.4.7.2 states, "For each task order, the offeror shall provide a separate list of the CWBS elements for which it is proposing no effort; for these elements, the offeror shall not include “no bid” BOEs."

In the response to Question 528, the Government stated, "The offeror may not remove/delete CWBS elements."

It appears that where CWBS elements have no effort, there would also be no BOE content affiliated with the respective CWBS element.

Will the Government then please clarify the meaning of "no-bid" BOEs?

Answer: Do not create BOEs that provide no content. Where there is no effort (e.g. Help Desk), do not submit a BOE that restates there is no effort.

Question:

Section L4.3.1.1(9) states that “Per FAR 52.217-8, all CLIN prices for the six-month extension period shall be proposed as 50% of the price for Option Year 4”.

Please confirm that the six-month extension period shall be excluded from the BOEs.

Answer: BOEs supporting the six-month extension are not required.

Question:

Will the Government please clarify the purpose of the Attachment 04, Rights in Data? Will the Government confirm that if the Contractor asserts data rights at the IDIQ level, those assertions do not supersede the rights asserted at the Task Order Level?

Answer: Attachment 04, Rights in Data, is for offerors to assert what data rights they are providing across the entire IDIQ contract, to include awarded task orders.

Question:

Section L of the final RFP includes DFARS 252.215-7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist. Given that the Government anticipates adequate competition and the solicitation does not require the submission of certified cost and pricing data, can the Government confirm offerors are not required to include a Proposal Adequacy Checklist in their proposal submission?

Answer:

DFARS 252.215-7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist was included because it may apply to future orders as discussed in RFP Attachment 03, paragraph 4.2.3.

Offerors are not required to include a Proposal Adequacy Checklist in this proposal submission.

Question:

For Task Orders 01 and 02 the Government requests offerors to complete the clauses for DFARS 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, and 252.227-7017; however, DFARS 252.227-7017 does not appear in Section I of the contract or Task Order 01 or 02. DFARS 252.227-7017 is in Section K of the solicitation. Should this clause be added to Section I of Attachment 9a and 10a?

Answer: DFARS 252.227-7017 is not required in Section I of the individual task orders.

Question:

In paragraph 3.0 of Attachment 04 it states "This listing satisfies the identification and assertion requirements addressed in DFARS 252.227-7017, 252.227-7013 or 252.227-7014." This appears to be duplicative; therefore, can the Government confirm offerors are required to provide the completed clauses in Section in L5.1.5 and the completed Attachment 04 required in Section L5.1.6.4?

Answer:

This is not duplicative.

Offerors need to complete Attachments 4, 09e, and 10d.

For Attachment 09a and Attachment 10a, offerors need to complete and sign the signature block at paragraph (e) on both clauses 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014.

The text of DFARS clauses 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014 have nearly identical language in paragraph (e)(2) “the Contractor asserts should be furnished to the Government with restrictions on use, release, or disclosure are identified in an attachment to this contract (the Attachment). The Contractor shall not deliver any data with restrictive markings unless the data are listed on the Attachment.”

Attachments 4, 09e, and 10d satisfy the references to “the Attachment” in clauses 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014.

33 Question:

The instructions for L5.2.4 and L5.3.4 requires the offeror to complete and submit the clauses in DFARS 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, and 252.227-7017. Sections L5.2.5.4 and L5.3.5.3 require the offeror to complete solicitation Attachment 9e and Attachment 10d respectively. In paragraph 3.0 of Attachments 9e and 10d it states "This listing satisfies the identification and assertion requirements addressed in DFARS 252.227-7017, 252.227-7013 or 252.227-7014."

This appears to be duplicative. Can the Government confirm offerors are required to provide both the completed clauses listed in Section L5.2.4 / L5.3.4 AND the completed Attachment 9e / 10d required by Section L5.2.5.4 / L5.3.5.3?

Answer:

This is not duplicative.

Notice that on Attachment 09a and Attachment 10a, clauses 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014, the tables at paragraph (e) is pre-filled for the Task Order as “See Section J, Attachment 1, Rights in Data.”

For Attachment 09a and Attachment 10a, offerors need to complete and sign the signature block at paragraph (e) on both clauses 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014.

Offerors need to complete Attachments 4, 09e, and 10d, which identify all data rights assertions but have no signature.

Note:

L5.2.5.4(c) instructs offerors that solicitation Attachment 09e will become Task Order 01, Attachment 01 after award.

L5.3.5.3(c) instructs offerors that solicitation Attachment 10d will become Task Order 02, Attachment 01 after award.

Question:

Given the RFP includes FAR 52.204-13, System for Award and Management Maintenance (SAM), should offerors only include responses required for Section K that are not provided in SAM?

Answer: That is correct.

Question:

With the inclusion of 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards, will the government also include 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards – Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts), to allow price adjustments when the Department of Labor (DoL) issues changes to the Wage Determination?

Answer: There will be an amendment to add this clause.

Question:

The page limit for Subfactor 4: CAF Development and Integration is listed as 15 pages. The draft RFP dated 31 May 2019 included a 15 page limit for the Subfactor 4 Technical Approach and a 25 page limit for the PWS.

Since the PWS was removed as an evaluation factor in the final RFP, evaluators may not have sufficient evidence to evaluate the offeror’s capabilities. If the PWS is not included in the Technical Volume evaluation, we request an additional 5 pages be added to Subfactor 4 to allow offerors to provide sufficient detail for evaluation.

Answer: The Government will increase the page limit by 5 pages to 20 pages total for the Technical Approach.

37 Question:

Given that future TADS Task Order Requests are unknown/undefined and that the Government has not provided standard IDIQ-level Labor Categories, offerors will be unable to identify subcontractor cost, price, and hours for future Task Orders in advance of specific Task Order Requests.

In the Government's response to Pre-Solicitation Question 549, did the Government mean to respond: "All information in items (a) through (k) must be provided for all proposed subcontractors … on Task Orders 1 and 2"?

Please clarify the applicability of L4.4.4.1 to subcontractors that are not proposed on the initial two task orders.

Answer:

In order to include subcontractors in clause 52.244-2 paragraph (j), the subcontractors have to be evaluated during the source selection.

Although it is true that the Government has not identified standard IDIQ-level Labor Categories, an offeror could have negotiated a rate schedule with their subcontractors. If there is a rate schedule with subcontractor, then provide the schedule in accordance with L4.4.4.1(e).

Question:

Notwithstanding the government’s response to Pre-Solicitation Question 549, the requirement to provide all information in items (a) through (k) for all proposed subcontractors for Task Orders other than TO1 and TO2 is simply not possible with respect to L4.4.4.1(f), Subcontractor price and hours proposed. Offerors cannot know in advance of future TORs what subcontractor labor categories, hours, and prices will be for anything other than TO1 and TO2.

Will the Government please clarify the proper interpretation of this requirement and consider revising the requirement to account for this distinction between awardable TOs and future TOs?

Answer:

With respect to L4.4.4.1, the Government is not directing offerors to propose subcontracts for all potential, future, unknown requirements.

The Government is requiring the data at L4.4.4.1 for all subcontracts that the offeror is proposing.

Question:

For the purposes of determining whether a subcontractor must submit a separate Cost Volume under L.4.2.3.1, does the government consider the initial Cost Proposal as one order or as a separate order for TO1 and a separate order for

TO2?

Answer:

L4.2.3.1 states “For each Order in the solicitation, on an Order-by-Order basis, a major subcontractor, IDT, teaming partner or joint venture partner is one whose share […]”

TO1 is a separate order from TO2.

Question:

L2.8.2 states, "Initial proposal packages shall be either mailed or hand-delivered.

Offerors are cautioned that Offutt Air Force Base has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance."

Will the Government clarify whether those with DoD IDs (e.g. DoD CAC, Military Dependent, Reserves, or Retiree) may access the base without going through Visitor Control? Will the Government please provide direction/process for those who do require sponsorship to get on base to deliver proposals and the timeline needed to request such access?

Answer:

Offerors need to contact the visitor control center to verify their ability to access the base. It is the offerors’ responsibility to deliver their proposals before the deadline stated on the solicitation.

USPS, FedEx, and UPS do deliver on base. The 55th Contracting Squadron will have moved to a different building on Offutt AFB on/before 1 August 2019. After the

55th Contracting Squadron’s updated address is confirmed, there will be a notice posted to FedBizOpps.