Gov't Responses to Industry Questions.docx

Responses to Industry Questions (Received 12-23 Mar 12) 26 Mar 12

This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process.

b) The JV information provided is all inclusive of the entire Air Force. The numbers reflect the total JVs performed. As one progresses through the year, the review and reconciliation requirements for JV should diminish.

Question: Is this correct?

Yes, Contractor Teaming Arrangements are allowed. The bullet referenced also addresses how to manage subcontractors, RFP Sec 4a-7, and Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA), RFP Sec 4a-3.

Added ID/IQ PWS paragraph 1.3.5, which states, “Note: All efforts include Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.”

In general, the document is confusing related to T&M versus FFP. If we are updating the FIP daily why is there a need for a WAR and MSR? If we are FFP and delivering product does it matter if the Government (2.7.4) is closed due to weather? Some items like closure/MSR/WAR imply a T&M environment to “justify what we are doing,” while others seem to be FFP and deliverable focused. Clarification is required.

In general the document references systems, FISCAM capabilities, and that assertions will include systems. The document provides a list of systems requiring FISCAM assessments but the document does not address the length of time to gain access to the systems, nor how many systems have already had FISCAM assessments completed or who completed these assessments (i.e., Certified Information System Auditors (CISA), system administrators or program offices, AFAA personnel). Will the Government provide these details if they continue towards a FFP environment?

· The Monthly Status Report is no longer a requirement; however, the FIPs and remaining WAR serve difference purposes to management.

· The Government closures information is provided for those performing on-site work where Government personnel must be present.

· More current FIPs will be provided with the Final RFP to help offerors ascertain progress on assertion packages.

· The government recognizes that there will be a delay dealing with contractor access; however, the Government plans to provide needed documents until that access is granted.

To be determined during Contract performance (see FIPs for expected timelines). There are approximately five (5) meetings each month per assertion package that discuss FIP status.

· The Government will set the sustainment schedule.

· A determination will be made at the time the package is set to move into sustainment.

· The Mandatory Documentation Tables of the SBR and E&C TOs explain those that are under sustainment; the FIPs provide anticipated completion of other efforts that may be complete by contract award.

Added, “…once DEAMS (developed under a separate contract) is implemented and utilized within the applicable assessable unit.” To the end of the sentence.

Changed ID/IQ PWS paragraph 7.3 to read, “Any issue that impacts the Contractor’s ability to meet FIP and AF Acceleration Plan milestones/timelines requires verbal and electronic notification to the COR initially identifying the nature of the issue within three (3) business hours of identification. In these instances, the Contractor shall then provide written recommendations and corrective actions required to meet FIP and AF Acceleration Plan milestones/timelines within eight (8) business hours of identification, unless otherwise approved in writing by the applicable COR.” Adjusted Deliverables tables on same subject in all task orders accordingly.

It may not be AF-wide; however, there are far too many times when contractor personnel are in meetings, etc. and do not properly identify themselves and Government personnel don’t ask attendees to identify themselves as Contractors. This will remain a requirement of this contract.

0. Task Orders 0002 and 0003, Section 2.7.2, page 4: “Provide evidence that all Key Control Objectives (KCO) are met IAW FIPs, FIAR Guidance, and AF Acceleration Plan.” Vendors can and should obtain/collect audit evidence and evaluate the evidence in relation to the supportability of KCOs and overall audit readiness; however, a vendor under this contract cannot and should not be responsible for “providing the evidence for the auditability.”

0. Task Orders 0002 and 0003, Section 2.7.2.1, page 4: “Perform the Discovery, Corrective Action, Evaluation, and Assertion Phases identified in FIAR Guidance for each FIP (Assertion Phase not required for Sustainment).” Vendors can and should obtain/collect audit evidence and evaluate the evidence in relation to the supportability of overall audit readiness; however, a vendor under this contract cannot and should not be responsible for all aspects of all phases of audit readiness. For example, with the referenced text below, corrective action plans (CAP) should be developed by the functional owner (the Government office/organization with the power to cause change) of the issue in coordination with audit readiness support (vendor and/or Government). The contractor can assist, validate the CAP will resolve the noted deficiency, and provide audit readiness guidance, but should not be the sole/single source of CAPs completion.

1. Task Orders 0002 and 0003, Section 2.7.12, page 6: “Where deficiencies (see subparagraphs) exist, the Contractor shall recommend executable corrective actions to meet assertion milestones. In those cases where executable corrective action is not deemed possible, notify the Functional Owner/COR of any actions that may delay/preclude assertion, with recommended resource/timeline requirements.”

1. Task Orders 0002 and 0003, Section 2.7.7.1, page 5: “Assertion and sustainment documentation include system and process flow documentation, risk analysis, control analysis, internal control testing, and evaluation of testing, and CAP including documentation of manual workarounds and compensating controls involved in the development of these packages.”

0. Task Order 0002, Section 2.8.2, page 7: “Overarching Consolidated Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR). The Contractor shall achieve audit readiness for assertion and sustain of an audit ready state for an overarching, consolidated SBR assertion. Audit readiness shall be complete by 31 March 2014. The COR for this portion of the effort is located in the SAF/FMPA office in the NCR.” The vendor can provide support in documenting and assessing audit readiness, but cannot speak for management related to the achievement of audit readiness through assertion.

a) Changed to, “Obtain, collect and evaluate audit evidence to support Key Control Objectives (KCO) and overall readiness IAW FIPs, FIAR Guidance and AF Acceleration Plan so that the Government can provide evidence that all KCOs are met.”

b) Added, “Assist the Government in performance of the Discovery, Corrective Action…” at the beginning of referenced paragraphs.

i. Added, “Where deficiencies…exist, the Contractor shall work with applicable Government personnel to recommend executable…” in referenced paragraphs.

ii. This falls under maintaining documentation; there isn’t anything inherently Governmental about that.

c) Changed referenced paragraph to, “The Contractor shall provide support in documenting and assessing audit readiness and sustainment to assist the Air Force in achieving and maintaining an audit ready state for an overarching,…” in task order 0002.

"EXCEPTIONS" refers to the offeror agreeing to all of the terms and conditions of the solicitations, i.e. clauses, special clauses.

Page counts relate only to applicable areas, as specified in table at 6-8.1.

1. Task Orders 0001, 0002, and 0003, Section 4.1.4: “Meeting the contract performance schedule is critical to the success of this requirement. Thus the contractor shall notify in writing the applicable COR, Quality Assurance Manager (QAM), and CO at any point during contract performance if they believe the Government has not provided requested information in a reasonable amount of time or if the information provided does not meet accuracy or completeness needs for continued successful performance. Appropriate Government personnel will then work to resolve the situation and final resolution and dispensation will be documented for the record by the CO.”

1. Task Orders 0002 and 0003, Section 2.7.9, page 6: “Assist in any oral or written presentation required in the review and approval process for each assertion package (see AF FIAR Support ID/IQ PWS paragraph 1.2 and subparagraphs).”

1. Task Orders 0002 and 0003, Section 2.7.12-2.7.14, page 6: “Where deficiencies (see subparagraphs) exist, the Contractor shall recommend executable corrective actions to meet assertion milestones. In those cases where executable corrective action is not deemed possible, notify the Functional Owner/COR of any actions that may delay/preclude assertion, with recommended resource/timeline requirements. Deficiencies may take the form of, but are not limited to:

· Material weakness or misstatement

· Transactions that are not captured under one of the assessable units

· Unidentified assessable units

· Lack of required data or lack of access to required data to support efforts.”

T&M and LH would not be approved as part of an acquisition strategy for this effort.

1. Task Order 0002, Section 2.8.3.1, page 7-8: “Special Programs Clearance Requirements. This portion of the SBR audit readiness effort requires Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearance and the Contractor shall adhere to the Joint Air Force-Army-Navy (JAFAN) security manuals to ensure compliance for all personnel working this parallel effort. This work will occur at Government-designated facilities that meet the TS/SCI and JAFAN in the NCR.” Special Programs assertions may require altered review protocols due to the sensitivity of the subject matter. Has the AF developed these protocols with OSD? How should a vendor look to price this work if these have not been developed? What review times should be assumed by the Government for these packages?

1. Task Orders 0001, 0002, and 0003, Section 4.1.3, Table of Contract Deliverables: Work products outlined in Figures 14 through 24 of paragraph 3.A.5 of the FIAR Guidance dated December 2011. How will changes to the FIAR Guidance affect active Task Orders?

1. Task Order 0002, Section 2.8.1.2, page 7 (similarly, Section 2.8.2 of TO 0003): “These FIPs will follow the same methodologies as existing FIPs. Once FIPs are developed (Government anticipates completion prior to ID/IQ award) for these assessable units (and any others identified in the course of contract performance for which FIPs are not yet developed), the Government will issue a separate Task Order(s) for new assessable units.” How should vendors address this in their pricing? AUs that are listed in the RFP TOs, but do not have FIPs? Should they be included or excluded in pricing? In other words, are they considered “new” or existing for this RFP?

In the draft PWSs, the SBR task order ended with the 30 September 2014 date and the E&C of Mission Critical Assets task order ended 30 September 2015, with follow-on task orders expected for sustainment for the remaining performance timeframe. The final PWSs take both task order 0002 and task order 0003 out to 29 July 2017.

2. AF is developing an approach with OSD, DoDIG, AFAA and Special Programs. Examinations are not covered work under this contract. Review times of completed packages are performed after the assertion package compilation is performed. The Government estimates two (2) weeks for review.

2. There is no way to predict changes to the FIAR Guidance or how the Government will react. The extent of any additions/changes will be addressed on a case-by-case basis with the CO to determine if the changes dictate no change to the task order, a task order modification, or warrant creation of a new task order.

2. These paragraphs are provided for information only as the Government realizes there may be additional areas identified that required FIPs. If there is not an existing FIP, the work is not included or expected in the two audit readiness and sustainment task orders (0002 or 0003). Any new work requiring a FIP will be issued under separate task order(s).These paragraphs are provided for information only as the Government realizes there may be additional areas identified that required FIPs. If there is not an existing FIP, the work is not included or expected in the two audit readiness and sustainment task orders (0002 or 0003). Any new work requiring a FIP will be issued under separate task order(s).

1. How many current transactions are on the ODL?

1. How many are over 60 days old?

1. How many are over 180 days old?

1. How many are over 1 year old?

1. How many are over 2 years old?

1. How many are older than 3 years?

1. When was the last ODL certified by the AFDW ALO office completed?

1. Can a copy of the most recent ODL certification be provided?

If this information cannot be provided will the Government consider moving this task to its own separate Task Order as FFP LOET or T&M, or include in Task 0002 or Task 0003?

Task removed from this requirement.

The Subfactor 1 Technical criteria have been updated to reflect a more staff-based approach.