RFP DRAFT AFRC IT Support Services Answers .xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 49 KB Posted
- Attached to
- HQ AFRC Enterprise IT Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA6643-22-R-0001
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 24
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| RFP Reference | RFP Reference2 | Question | Gov't Response |
| All | All | To what degree does AFRC anticipate active-duty Air Force infrastructure and modernization efforts (e.g., EITAAS) interacting with and/or influencing the work done on this contract? | EITaaS does have the potential to impact tasks on this effort but the implementation approach for EITaaS is still under development so AFRC cannot yet determine the potential impact. |
| All | All | To what degree does the Enterprise IT Services infrastructure used by the Active-Duty Air Force support and/or influence that used by AFRC? | AF enterprise provides enterprise services (Domain, DNS, EndPoint Security, Vulnerability detection and monitoring, e-mail, collaboration (Teams), SharePoint Online (NIPR), Network boundary, and WAN) |
| Attch 1- PWS | 1.1 | Will the government please clarify what type of support is performed at each tier (0-IV) given that these tiers are not well defined in PWS 5.8.5.2 where support tiers appear to be conflicted with IT access levels? For instance, tier 0 support is often considered entry level help desk or touch labor support, whereas tier 4 support often denotes outside support from OEM’s or vendors. | - Tier 0 - User self-service (Enabled by AFRC A6 through knowledge base, etc.) |
- Tier 1 - Service Desk, Communications Focal Point, Touch Maintenance
- Tier 2 - Backshop/Functional area support - Service configuration/operation, escalated Tier 1 issues
- Tier 3 - On-site vendor representatives (Residents) or vendor tech support if no on-site vendor presence
- Tier 4 - Escalated issues worked by vendors
| Attch 1- PWS | 1.1 | The fourth bullet references paragraph 5.8.5.2 as Customer support, however paragraph 5.8.5.2 is Information Technology (IT) Level and Investigation Required. Will the Government please address this discrepancy? | Removed the reference to 5.8.5.2 from 4th bullet. |
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.2 | Will the government please clarify what type of IPTV set top boxes require support, HaiVision, Amino, etc. and does this support also require IPTV headend device support? Is the IPTV support required at a single location? | Minimal support required - Keep H/W running until it dies. No current plan to modernize (streaming video/cable TV to replace) |
Set top boxes are vBrick (EoL 2018) - Approximately 10/location vBrick 9000 Series Quad Channel Encoders (EoL ~2020) - Approximately 2/location Attch 1- PWS 2.2 Is there an SLA breakdown that the government can provide? Is this a 24/7 support function? Is on-call support or on-site support required? No SLA No. Current hours at HQ AFRC are 0700-1700 M-F On-site support at three AFRC facilities No UTA support by HQ AFRC CFP
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.7 | Can the government clarify how a provider which recommends modernization initiatives to AFRC will not be precluded from delivering said initiatives due to an organization conflict of interest? Will said modernization work be delivered as a modification to this contract or as a separate contract? | The government doesn't see where this would be a conflict of interest. Modernization initiatives suggested by the government or contractor would be awarded in negotiated task orders in the existing contract | |
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.7 | Can the government provide additional insight into the level of effort expected in the IT Modernization Task area? Does the government consider IT Modernization Support a primary objective of this contract? | Level of effort will be determined if/when a significant modernization effort is suggested by the government. Not a primary objective. Government is always seeking Continuous Process Improvement ideas from all team members, to include contractor partners | |
| Attch 1- PWS | 5.12 | Section 5.12 states that "Key Personnel shall be identified in the Contractor’s quote and shall also identify requisite years of experience, certifications, credentials and education IAW the solicitation," There is no mention exactly where the Government would like this information provided in the proposal. Will the Government please update the Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters to include specifics for the Key Personnel requirement? | Edited 5.12 to remove reference to reviewing key personnel info during tech eval. Key personnel will be evaluated during implementation after award. | |
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.1.1 | Will the government please clarify how the 75% TDY status relates to the workforce assigned to duties under 2.1.1? | ||
| Does this mean that at any given time, 75% of the workforce is anticipated to be working physically TDY at remote locations throughout the year, or does this mean that over an FTE year it is anticipated 75% of the workforce will be TDY for 30 days or more in a calendar year? | The workforce in 2.1.1 provides on-site evaluation, assessment, and engineering for pre-implementation site surveys and pre-install readiness assessments. The workforce in 2.1.1 must travel to HQ and AFRC host bases to perform these duties. The level of travel for the entire workforce supporting 2.1.1 is expected to be ~75%. AFRC anticipates that the workforce will plan, schedule, and execute trips to AFRC HQ and host bases, followed by "home time" to prepare and generate trip reports and other artifacts as needed. | |||
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.1.1 | Will the government clarify at which locations other than HQ / Robins where the high TDY travel is anticipated, and is remote work performed by teams or individuals? Will the government clarify the average TDY team size if | ||
| known? | Travel is anticipated to HQ/Robins and all AFRC host bases. Occasionally, the workforce will be asked to support AFRC at meetings/conferences. Remote workers could perform the the tasks outlined in PWS para 2.1.1. |
Typical workforce for this activity is less than five individuals
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.1.1. | Can the AF provide more information on cloud initiatives such as cloud platform and vendor? Are these migration initiatives, and Is the AF in the process of migrating services to the Cloud? | AFRC is on a path to the cloud - No services have been transitioned at this time. Current initatives include transitioning mobile services, virtual desktop services, and data storage/analysis | |
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.1.11.1 | |||
| PWS 2.1.5 | Will the government please clarify if SCCM is used to manage all end-point devices, software update services, Operating System Deployments, application streaming to VDI sessions, and is the SCCM infrastructure centrally managed and operated from HQ AFRC or do local site servers or repositories also require onsite touch labor to | |||
| support? | SCCM is used on SIPR only. |
SCCM is centrally managed by AFRC for HQ and all host bases
AFRC does NOT do application streaming to VDI sessions using SCCM
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.1.14.1 | The PKI Lead at HQ AFRC requires only 1 year of PKI experience which sounds minimal given the complexity of the DoD/DISA Public Key Enablement / PKI Infrastructure including mobile support, derived credentials, purebred, etc. Is the only support function performed related to LRA functions and all other technical PKI support is provided by | ||
| Lackland AF PKI SPO? | AFRC rep only manages LRA functions | |||
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.1.15.1 | The qualifications under VTC appear to extend beyond a typical VTC CODEC / call manager hub and appear to cover more complicated briefing and display systems, audio / video switchers, and GUI touch panel programming. Will the government please clarify if any support is required for | ||
| video walls or briefing and display systems under this task? | The VTC Engineering support function provides initial troubleshooting, vendor interface for issue reporting and configuration changes, and module replacement. Example: For the video wall, the engineer would try to assess the source of an issue, contact the manufacturer/integrator, and replace a power supply. If on-site suport is needed from the manufacturer/integrator, the engineer will coordinate facility availability and assist the technician with base access | |||
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.1.2.1 | Is there a development requirement or just support to development, please clarify the type of support required. Is this tied to CLIN 7, IT Modernization support Plan? | This is not system/software development, but may include developing plans for service integration to/from a Cloud provider | |
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.1.2.1 | Can the government be more specific, are we talking repeaters or entire cell systems requiring tower climbing, etc? | Endpoint support only. Not a task to install entire cell systems. Cyber transport DOES coordinate design, installation, and maintenance with vendors | |
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.1.2.2 | Is it the contractor's requirement to procure and maintain this software capabiltity? | Maintenance only | |
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.1.3 | Will the government clarify if the VMware WS1 infrastructure is supported in an on-premise installation or a cloud-based support structure? | Currently on-premise with plans to transition to hybrid/Cloud in the future | |
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.1.7 | Is this a 24/7 monitoring requirement? Does this immediate on-site support, or on-call support, or combination. What is a typical Critical failure SLA for this function? | Manage/maintain the monitoring tools/services only. Typical support is 8-4 M-F, with on-call as needed (Remote or on-site as applicable) | |
| Attch 1- PWS | 2.1.9.1 | Can the government provide specific information on what enterprise level backup and restoration software product is currently being used? Doe the AF have a preference? | Dell/EMC Data Domain and Avamar | |
| Attch 1- PWS | 5.2 PWS | Will resumes be required, but not count towards page count when submitted? If so, will a resume template be provided? | Resumes will not be required as part of the proposal. | |
| Attch 1- PWS | 5.2.1 | The table under PWS 5.2.1 identifies a Level II certification level required for 2.5.1 (Cybersecurity Support). Will the Government please clarify if this is IAM or IAT Level II? | Our ISSOs perform a unique set of duties since we have an enclave. The ISSM and ISSO roles perform at both System and Base/Wing roles. Based on these unique roles, the Cybersecurity support position (2.5.1) should be an IAM-II position. | |
| Attch 1- PWS | 6.0 PWS Appendix A | Can you confirm there are enough seats on site at AFRC for all employees that will be working to support HQ AFRC or will some of the positions be permanent telework positions? | Yes, all contractors will have a place to work on site regardless of the location. | |
| Attch 1- PWS | Attachment 1 IT Enterprise SVS PWS | Will the Government provide an historical work load or level of effort for each site in order for industry to adequately assess the required staffing level and provide reasonable and realistic pricing and staffing? | Needed workload is described in the first task order. Vendors should estimate what they need to complete services identified. | |
| Attch 1- PWS | Para 2.1 | Can the government define the differences between tenant support and host base support? | AFRC host bases provide full IT support through a combination of military, civilian, and contractor workforce. Tenant support is limited to specific services provided by HQ AFRC. The majority of tenant support is provided by Active Duty hosts. Several tenants use HQ-hosted SIPR VDI and VOSIP services managed from HQ AFRC | |
| Attch 1- PWS | Para 2.1.1 | Will the AFRC use AF Cloud 1 or AF Platform 1 for cloud migration? Or does AFRC have their own cloud solution? | A Cloud migration platform has not been selected. AFRC is currently evaluating options. | |
| Attch 1- PWS | Para 2.1.3 | Is there a requirement to develop Mobile applications or is the requirement to assist developers? | Assist only | |
| Attch 1- PWS | Para 2.1.4 | Where are each of the 18 Data centers located, and how many data centers per location? Whre are the approximately 1,000 virtual servers located? | Virtual servers are hosted across all AFRC Bases. Administration of virtual servers are primarily performed by HQ AFRC staff. Base contractor staff may be requested to provide touch labor support. (Lowest replacable unit replacement, power down/power up) (see Data Center Site Support Tab in this doc). |
| Attch 1- PWS | Para 2.1.5 | What is AFRC's definition of Virtual servers? What Vservers are on Prem and which are off Prem? | A virtual server is provisioned with compute/memory/storage from on-premise hardware. All virtual servers are currently on-prem |
| Attch 1- PWS | Para 2.1.5 | Can the government define or provide an example of peak times? Are UTA's on weekends considered to be peak times? | Typical business hours (M-F 0800-1600) will have peak times (early AM and after lunch) where there is more demand for support. |
Atypical peak times are during weekend UTA periods, usually the 1st and/or 2nd weekend of the month
| Attch 1- PWS | Para 4.5/4.6? | Will the government update the reference to the most current NISPOM 32 CFR Part 116? | 32 CFR Part 117 is the current version. |
| Attch 1- PWS | Para 5.15 | Given that much of AFRC Reservists serve over weekends, will there be a requirement to provide service desk support over weekends? | Requirements for specific locations requiring UTA weekend service desk support will be defined in each task order. At locations where contractor service desk support is not typically required for UTA weekends, under unusual circumstances, support may be required and the contractor would be asked to rearrange work schedules to accommodate this type of request. |
| Attch 1- PWS | Para 5.8.1.4 | Based on COMSEC requirements, are there other Top Secret requirements in this contract not explicitly stated? | Top Secret would not be required |
| Attch 1- PWS | Can the government identify which systems/applications/programs are unique to AFRC vice which are common across the active duty Air Force and AFRC? | The VMWare Virtual Desktop Infrastructure is not an AF-wide service |
The AirWatch/IDM mobile services are unique to AFRC at this time Attch 1- PWS What applications/systems must reside in an IL 5 or above environment? Many data elements across AFRC systems are Controlled Unclassified Information, so IL5 protection is appropriate for the AFRC unclassified infrastructure As SIPR services transition to Cloud providers, IL6 protections will be appropriate
| Attch 1- PWS | PWS is structured emphasizes on Qualifications but does not specify in process or management structure to implement the entire program. Is it the governments intent to have the vendor to propose this in our solution? | PWS describes the governmnet's needed services. It will be up to the vendor to determine the management struture for providing the needed services. | ||
| Attch 1- PWS | Para 2.1. and 4.16., pg 3, 59, 96 | The Vendor Program Manager (PM) is the only position that indicates"full-time on-site support at AFRC" and "Telework may be considered for positions that don’t require on-sight workload." Since there are multiple host bases and a move to more remote work, could the Government please provide additional breakdown of which positions (LCATs) will require on-site vs remote work by labor category and location. For example, will the Desktop Support Technician - Level 1 - Duke Field FL be required to provide on-site support at that specific location since it is not designated as "not requiring on-site support" in th PWS, Table 5 (Approximate Population and Workstation/Servers Supported), page 96. | Don't expect to be position specific on who can or can't telework. The government expectation is for all contractors to be on site with the exception of those providing service discribed in PWS Para 2.1.1. Situational teleworking arrangement can be discussed between the Fuctional Govt Representative and the contractor employee. | |
| Attch 1- PWS | Para 4.11.1., pg 57 | Can the Government please confirm that the referenced time zone for "Normal duty hours are from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, | ||
| excluding federal holidays." | There is no para 4.11.1. Assume this refers to para 5.15 on page 56. Have added additional info to clarify the applicable time zones. | |||
| Attch 1- PWS and Attch 3 - TO PWS | 2.1.10. | |||
| PWS Appendix B | It looks like the workload is distributed between HQ and the March ARB. Do these sites serve as COOP sites for the other locations? How is this divided up? Is the workload for this section evenly distributed between the two sites, or is it split based on the majority of the work being performed at the HQ? | Every base replicates to a different base. All backups go to HQ AFRC or Dobbins ARB. The workload at March and Robins is to monitor/manage/administer the backup and replication processes for the entire command. | ||
| Attch 1- PWS and Attch 3 - TO PWS | 2.1.3.1 | Throughout the PWS and Task Order 1 requirements and qualifications are specified where experience with AFNet is required. As this has the effect of providing the incumbent contractor with an inherent bias, would the government accept comparable experience with the same underlying technologies within each relevant section or consider adding the caveat that AFNet experience is desired vs required? | Comparable experience acceptable if described TO PWS has been updated to remove AFNET experience to focus on technologies required | |
| Attch 1- PWS and Attch 3 - TO PWS | 2.1.4 |
2.1.6 2.1.7
| Appendix B | Within the PWS, Task Order 1, and Appendix B there appears to be some ambiguity in how many physical servers, virtual servers (VM’s), and hypervisor hosts require support. In Appendix B, 1336 servers are listed, however in 2.1.4 there are 1000 virtual servers listed and in 2.1.7 there are 750 servers listed just for monitoring and vulnerability scanning purposes. Will the government please clarify if the 1336 servers in Appendix B are virtualization hypervisor hosts and if the 35 VMware suites, virtualization clusters, or management control planes for these systems are all accessible from the HQ AFRC Robins location? If the 1336 servers are physical servers, hypervisor hosts, or a mixture thereof, how many virtual servers VM’s require support? | The number of virtual servers and Hypervisor hosts are outlined below. The environment is distributed across 38 vCenters. All vCenters are managed from HQ AFRC NIPR: Virtual Servers- 1157, Hypervisor Hosts (ESXi) (Physical) - 348, SIPR: Virtual Servers- 335, Hypervisor Hosts (ESXi) (Physical) - 111, Total: Virtual Servers- 1492, Hypervisor Hosts (ESXi) (Physical) - 459 | ||
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attachment 11 | It appears govt will stack proposals by price and if tech acceptable and score exceptional on past performance evalution is over. Based on this not all proposals will be read. How will the govt take into account price realism ? | This statement will be added: The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis on the lowest price proposal(s). Proposals are understood to reflect the Offerors’ understanding of the technical requirements of the PWS in its entirety. Proposals with an unrealistic price (price too low) may be determined ineligible for award. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attachment 11 | The evaluation approach outlined in the solicitation is such that the government could award to a viable technical volume with a low price and suitrable past performance. The scope outlined in the solicitation is critical to the functioning and surviability of the AFRC mission. Will the government evaluate offers for price realism prior to award. | This statement will be added: The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis on the lowest price proposal(s). Proposals are understood to reflect the Offerors’ understanding of the technical requirements of the PWS in its entirety. Proposals with an unrealistic price (price too low) may be determined ineligible for award. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attachment 11 | Under Section 1. General, at the end of subfactor two the Government states "This description should include key | ||
| technologies/tools/systems required within AFRC IT environment." Does the PWS in Attachment 1 list all key technologies/tools/systems required within the AFRIC IT environment? If not, please advise what additional key technologies/tools/systems that offers should consider for inclusion in technical proposal. | The question is not clearly stated, but the government believes all applicable technologies are listed in the PWS | |||
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attachment 11 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2.pdf | Paragraph F.1 states "Proposals will be evaluated based on Total Evaluated Price (TEP), completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing". There is no mention of price realism evlaution. How will the government determine if a selected offeror's price is REALISTIC IAW FAR 15.404-1 | This statement will be added: The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis on the lowest price proposal(s). Proposals are understood to reflect the Offerors’ understanding of the technical requirements of the PWS in its entirety. Proposals with an unrealistic price (price too low) may be determined ineligible for award. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attachment 11 Addendum to Far 52.212-2, Para 3.1, Past Performance Relevancy Matrix Past Performance Relevancy Matrix | The Government states to be very relevant for a proposed past performance reference that it must be at least 10 Mil annually for a single contract or task order with at least 80 FTEs, in Para 3.1 Series of Orders the government states that we can combine a series of Task Orders under the basic ordering contract to meet relevancy. Can the Government please clarify which is correct? | An applicable series of orders may be used to meet the relevancy requirement. Attch 11 will be updated to clarify this. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attachment 11 Addendum to Far 52.212-2, Para 3.2, Past Performance Relevancy Matrix | In Para 3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders the government states " The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, and Complexity of Data Deliverables of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4.1 below." Will the relevancy table graded against each individual Past Performance reference or combined across all Past Performance references provided? | Each submission will be graded individually against the rating chart. The aggregate of the relevancy ratings will be combined to get a confidence rating. Please see Relevancy clarification document in the posting. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attachment 11 Addendum to Far 52.212-2, Para 4.0, Past Performance Relevancy Matrix Past Performance Relevancy Mat | In Para 4.0 Relevancy Definitions the Government is requiring 5 Past Performance References by the prime. If the Prime has 5 contracts worth 10 Mil annually, they would be too large for the current NAICS code of 541519 with the size standard of 30 Mil. We recommend the Government to either change the NAICS code to 517311, which was a proven approach for the recent IAFNOS II acquisition that is similar in size and scope, or decrease the Magnitude to 8 Mil with 60 FTES. | Requirement has been updated to reflect up to 5 past performances may be supplied, not that 5 are required. We will adjust the relevancy table. Please see the relevancy clarification document in the posting. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attch 11, Page 5 | In Attachment 11, page 5, the Magnitude requirement for a Very Relevant rating for each of the required 5 past performances is for at least $10 MM per year. Having the required 5 references in a 3 year period would be in conflict with the $30M NAICS size limit. To respect the $30MM NAICS size limit, we suggest that the Government allow the references to occur over a 5 year period. | Requirement for PPQ has been updated to reflect up to 5 past performances may be supplied, not that 5 are required. Each submission will be graded individually against the rating chart. The aggregate of the relevancy ratings will be combined to get a confidence rating. Please see Relevancy clarification document in the posting. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attch 11, Page 5 | In Attachment 11, page 5, under Scope, "Spectrum Management in the DoD" is a required past performance criteria for Very Relevant ratings. However, the requirements for a Critical Subcontractor past performance on page 2, section 1 (General) list only the services related to Mission Essential tasks and does not list the Spectrum Management service area as an area that can be covered by a Critical Subcontractor. Therefore, a subcontractor cannot provide the past performance for DoD Spectrum Management. This will restrict the "Very Relevant" competition to only those prime offerors who also have relevant past performance in Spectrum Management in the DoD. Will the Government consider adding "Spectrum Management in the DoD" as a covered service area in the definition of a Critical Subcontractor? | Yes, spectrum management will be added to the definition of critical subcontractor to allow for past perfromance submission. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attch 11, Page 5 | The definition of a "critical" subcontractor is different between the Instructions to Offerors found in the RFP and the Evaluation criteria found in Attachment 11 with Attachment 11's definition making nearly every subcontractor a critical subcontractor that must provide 3 Past Performance citations. This definition drives prime contractors to no longer seek the best subcontract partners to meet unique mission requirements and instead only partner with other firms that can provide 3 recent and relevant past performance citations where they were a prime contractor. Will the government standardize on the definition in Attachment 11, Instructions to offerors across all solicitation documents, to prevent unnecessarily limiting competition?? | Subcontractor definition will be updated to match. Instructions will also be updated to clarify that up to 3 past performances may be submitted for each sub, not that 3 are required to be submitted. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attch 11, Page 5 | The diversity and specificity of technical requirements outlined in the PP relevancy matrix creates a scenario where a small business (or team) is unlikely to have past performance over a 3 year period that could apply to the requirmeent to achieve a VERY RELEVANT past performance rating. e.g. Consider a scenario where a PPQ shows 90% coverage of the SCOPE, 100% cover age of the COMPLEXITY and exceeds $10M annually. This could limit otherwise viable offers. Will the government consider changing the relevancy period for past performance to 5 years from 3? | The government has determined 3 years to be an adequate time for Past Performance relevancy for the services on this contract. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attch 11, Page 5 | The NAICS code is 541519 with a size standard of $30 MM. However, in Attachment 11, page 5, the Magnitude requirement for a Very Relevant rating for each of the required 5 past performances is for at least $10 MM per year. This would size-out offerors with what may otherwise be Very Relevant past performance from the Scope and Complexity perspectives if they exceed the $30 MM size limit. To respect the $30MM NAICS size limit, we suggest that the Government reduce the number of required past performance references to 2. | Requirement for PPQ will be been updated to reflect up to 5 past performances may be supplied, not that 5 are required. The aggregate of the relevancy of all PPQs will be taken into account to determine a confidence level, therefore a substantial confidence does not require a very relevant of any single contract. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attch 11, Page 5 | In Attachment 11, page 5, under Scope, "Spectrum Management in the DoD" is a required past performance criteria for Very Relevant ratings, whereas all other service areas in the Very Relevant scope are also defined as Mission Essential Tasks. The implication is that "Spectrum Management" is not considered as a Mission Essential task. Would the Government consider removing it from the Very Relevant Scope requirement since it is not considered in the Mission Essential tasks? | No. Relevancy is based on the key tasks in the overall PWS and is not defined solely by those services desinated as MIssion Essential. Mission Essential Services are only a sub-set of tasks in the overall PWS that must continue to be performed in extreme emergency/contingency situations. Although the contracted Spectrum Management tasks do not meet the Mission Essential Services definition, they are crucial for day to day operations and therefore an offeror's experience in this area is considered relevant to the offeror's ability to fulfill the PWS responsibilities. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Attch 11, Page 5 | SSG: This solicitation specifies a NAICS code of 541519 with a size standard of $30 MM. However, in Attachment 11, page 5, the Magnitude requirement for a Very Relevant rating for each of the required 5 past performances is for $10 MM per year. This creates a scenario where it is likely impossible for a SB under this NAICS to deliver 5 VERY R ELEVANT past performances (e.g. 5 PPs * $10M+ annual revenue = $50M/yr). To respect the $30MM NAICS size limit, we suggest that the Government reduce the number of required past performance references to "2-5 from the prime" and "1-3 from each critical subcontractor". | Requirement for PPQ needs to be updated to reflect up to 5 past performances may be supplied, not that 5 are required. The aggregate of the relevancy of all PPQs will be taken into account to determine a confidence level, therefore a substantial confidence does not require a very relevant of any single contract. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | D.4 | The word "enterprise" is used throughout the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix. The scope of this word varies and can have a wide-range of meaning … either for a base enterprise, Air Force Enterprise, or a MAJCOM enterprise. Will the Government please define their intent for the word "enterprise" in this case? | Enterprise on the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix refers to the AFRC MAJCOM enterprise, although there are references to supporting the AF enterprise in the PWS | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | para 3.1; Relevancy Matrix | If we use a "series of orders" from the same Single Award IDIQ contract (5 FACTS Sheet), will the relevancy for Scope, Complexity, and Magnitude be based at the individual FACTS Sheet level or at the summation level of all 5 FACTS Sheet? For example, we submit 5 task orders (5 FACTS Sheet) from the same Single Award IDIQ contract with each task order (Fact Sheet) value at $5M, will each task order (FACTS Sheet) be "Very Relevant" because the summation of all 5 FACTS Sheets (series of orders) total over the $10M very relevant evaluation criteria, or will each task order (FACTS Sheet) be rated "Not Relevant" because at the task order level each is only valued at $5M? | A single FACTS sheet should be submitted to summarize the relevancy demonstrated by the series. How well the aggregate of total PPQs submitted demonstrates the ability to meet relevancy requirements will be factored in the overall confidence assessment of a proposal. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Para D.1 | In this paragraph it states the definition of a critical subcontractor as an entity other than the offeror that will provide servcies in any o fthe following… this does not appear to be consistent with Para D.1 from the solicitation. Can the government please clarify this definition? | Will update Attch 11 to match solicitation instructions for definition of subcontractor. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Relevancy Matrix | In order for a FACTS Sheet to be "Very Relevant" does it need to meet both the $10M annual requirement and the 80 FTE requirement? Or can it meet one "or" the other to be rated Very Relevant. For example, if we submit a "series of orders" (5 FACTS Sheet from the same Single Award IDIQ contract with 20 FTEs each) that has a summation of 100 FTEs be considered Very Relevant or is each FACTS Sheet in the series evaluated independently and rated Not Relevant? | A single FACTS sheet should be submiited to summarize the relevancy demonstrated by the series. How well the aggregate of total PPQs submitted demonstrates the ability to meet relevancy requirements will be factored in the overall confidence assessment of a proposal. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Relevancy Matrix | The magnitude criteria for "Very Relevant" is over $10M annually. If a prime contractor has 5 FACTS Sheets that are $10M or more then they will be larger than the NAICS code allows for this acquisition ($50M). Will the government please consider reducing the $10M annual requirement to $5M to achieve a Very Relevant evaluation score? This would be appropriate for the NAICS code. | Requirement for PPQ has been updated to reflect up to 5 past performances may be supplied, not that 5 are required. | |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Relevancy Matrix | The criteria for Scope and Complexity in the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix specify exact hardware/software solutions and functions that are specific to the AFRC environment. There are no other enterprise-level contracts in the Air Force that support the exact environment of AFRC. This level of specificity seems to skew the Past Performance Relevancy ratings toward the incumbent only. Will the Government please consider generalizing the Scope and Complexity criteria to focus more on capabilities and the ability to deliver IT services/support to a large population without exactly mirroring the AFRC environment and calling out specific OEMs? | The VMWare/Dell_EMC/Cisco/Airwatch Workspace One environments make up the "crown jewels" of the AFRC enterprise. AFRC needs a contractor who can come in knowledgeable of these critical capabilities without having a 60-90 day ramp-up period. This contract is not being awarded to stand up new capability, it is to assume operational and maintenance of existing services to 75K users. The level of specificity is necessary because AFRC is heavily invested in these technologies and can't afford to have existing services impacted during contract transition. |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Relevancy Matrix | Regarding the evaluation of Past Performances in accordance with the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix - will the Government please clarify/confirm if each submitted contract/FACTS Sheets will be rated individually, or consolidated into one Past Performance confidence rating across all submitted contracts/FACTS Sheets, Prime and SubK? | How well the aggregate of total PPQs submitted demonstrates the ability to meet relevancy requirements will be factored in the overall confidence assessment of a proposal. |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Relevancy Matrix | Regarding the evaluation of Past Performances in accordance with the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix - will the Government please define how contract ratings will be assigned when there is a mix of ratings across Scope, Complexity, and Magnitude? For example, if a contract relevancy is rated as Very Relevant for Magnitude, Somewhat Relevant for Complexity, and Relevant for Scope, what overall Relevancy rating will be assigned? | The government will make a best assessment of relevancy. Relevancy will be combined with a quality assessment to establish an overall confidence level based on the body of work represented by all PPQs. |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Pg 5 | Although past performance will be evaluated in the aggregate, would the Government consider more flexibie Past Performance criteria to open the playing field to increased competition? As written, Scope is very specific to current AFRC systems and software so it will be difficult for any Vendor other than the incumbent to score high in all three areas. For example, we recommend opening it up to be Air Force wide and/or similar technologies. | The VMWare/Dell_EMC/Cisco/Airwatch Workspace One environments make up the "crown jewels" of the AFRC enterprise. AFRC needs a contractor who can come in knowledgeable of these critical capabilities without having a 60-90 day ramp-up period. This contract is not being awarded to stand up new capability, it is to assume operational and maintenance of existing services to 75K users. The level of specificity is necessary because AFRC is heavily invested in these technologies and can't afford to have existing services impacted during contract transition. |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Pg 4 | Would the Goverment be willing to require 3 total Past Performance references from the offeror team, which is in line with typical government requirements for a small business set aside RFP? | Requirement for PPQ has been updated to reflect up to 5 past performances may be supplied, not that 5 are required. |
| Attch 11- Addendum to FAR | Para 2, pg 3 | Given HQ AFRC/A6 is specifically looking for innovative ways to inject new or improved technologies and/or capabilities as a way to inform the strategy for all areas within the scope of the Enterprise IT contract, would the Government be willing to reframe the past performance evaluation criteria to include higher ratings for innovative successes? | The government is satisfied with our evaluation approach. |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | 5 and 6 | 5.0 General requirements states that Service Desk/CFP will be staffed at Portland, Grissom, March, Homestead, Youngstown and Pittsburgh. However, in 6.0 Appendix A, the Service Desk/CFP function is identified at more sites than those listed in section 5.0. Can the Government please clarify/correct this discrepancy? | 6.0 Appendix A identifies the services to be performed by location. The referenced statement in 5.0 identifies the locations where CFP service is specifically required on UTA weekends. Not all locations in Appendix A that require CFP services during the normal workweek will also require contracted services during the UTA weekends. |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Appendix A - Page 15, Appendix B - Page 18 | TO PWS references Appendix A for performance locations and shows 13 Locations while TO PWS Appendix B user population data shows 15 Sites locations. So that industry can effectvely develop an accurate and precise Basis of Estimte, will the government clarify the anticpated locations covered under Task Order 1. | |
| The 3 additional sites (Dobbins/MSP/Niagara) don't require contractor on site support. But HQ AFRC Tier 2 backshops provide general support to these locations. | |||
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Attachment 3 | In 2.1.1.1 "Qualifications Required to Perform These Services" the Government states "At least 7 years technical experience in AFRC architecture". Can the Government clarify that the requirement is to have 7 years experience with the technology/platforms leveraged in the AFRC architecture as opposed to 7 years experience specifically with AFRC architecture? | Updated TO PWS to reflect proposed change. |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Attachment 3 | In 2.1.6.1 "Qualifications Required to Perform These Services" the Government states "At least 3 years technical experience in AFRC and AFNet". Can this just be adjusted to "At least 3 years technical experience with AFNet"? Narrowing the candidate pool to only professionals with direct experience with AFRC will needlessly limit offerers' ability to supply suitable candidates. | Suggested change: |
Qualifications Required to Perform These Services:
• At least 3 years technical experience in DoD/AFNet.
• At least 3 years technical experience utilizing PowerShell.
Experience managing server infrastructure using the AFRC-selected technologies desired
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Attachment 3 | In 2.2.1. "Qualifications Required to Perform These Services" the Government states "At least 3 years experience to serve as Service Desk Lead at HQ AFRC only ". Request the Government remove this requirement; this needlessly narrows candidate pool and may give incumbent an unfair advantage. | Will clarify to indicate the intent is not to require 3 years of experince doing Service Desk work within AFRC, but rather 3 years of service desk experience in order to serve as HQ AFRC lead. |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.1.1 | Can the "AFRC architecture" be changed to reflect qualifications with commercial technologies and IT frameworks as this statement implies the government is looking to 'sole source' this to the incumbent? Nothing in the "AFRC Architecture" is unique to AFRC and therefore this requirement is very limiting for partners who provide innovative architecture experience with the technologies used within the "AFRC Architecture". A better qualification is to ensure Field Support personnel understand Intrusion Detection Systems, Network infrastructure, Security Information and Event Monitoring (SIEM), Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS), defense in depth design, zero trust principles, Cisco/Avaya/etc equipment and associated tools and impact they have on one another. Will the government consider modifying this requirement to reduce barriers to competition ? | Updated TO PWS to: "at least 7 years technical experience with the technology/platforms leveraged in the AFRC architecture" |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.1.1 | NIPR, SIPR and CITS are mostly commercial IT (Cisco, Avaya, etc) with TACLANEs, and not exquisite to NIPR, SIPR and CITS. This language limits contractor's ability to provide innovative technology solutions and personnel who have the technical skills and experience to operate on this infrastructure but who may not have explicit NIPR/SIPR/CITS experience. CITS leverages commercial technologies and frameworks which should be the driving factor for qualifications; additionally, NIPR and SIPR are just LAN/WAN technologies (SIPR utilizing hardware encryption services); the government is limiting their ability to innovate by requiring stovepiped knowledge/experience in the PWS. Will the govnerment consider modifying this requirement ? | Changed to read: At least 5 years experience with LAN/WAN technologies, hardware encryption concepts and technologies, e.g. TACLANE, HAIPE, etc. |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.10.1 bullet one states, "At lea | This statement appears to be written to imply the government is looking to 'sole source' this to the incumbent AFNet uses a myriad of commercial technologies in stovepiped and inefficient implementation methods; requiring contractors to have knowledge with poorly implemented, maintained and architectured networks does not necessarily provide the right ‘qualifications’ for sustaining an efficient and resilient infrastructure which we want to sustain and modernize for the Air Force; understanding the commercial technology solutions used in sustaining the AFNET should be more important than unique experience with the AFNet. Will the government consider modifying this requirement to reduce barriers to competition ? | Removed bullet #1 requiring AFNet experience. |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.11.1 | This statement appears to be written to imply the government is looking to 'sole source' this to the incumbent AFNet uses a myriad of commercial technologies in stovepiped and inefficient implementation methods; requiring contractors to have knowledge with poorly implemented, maintained and architectured networks does not necessarily provide the right ‘qualifications’ for sustaining an efficient and resilient infrastructure which we want to sustain and modernize for the Air Force; understanding the commercial technology solutions used in sustaining the AFNET should be more important than unique experience with the AFNet. Will the government consider modifying this requirement to reduce barriers to competition ? | Removed bullet #1 requiring AFNet experience. |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.12.1 | This statement appears to be written to imply the government is looking to 'sole source' this to the incumbent AFNet uses a myriad of commercial technologies in stovepiped and inefficient implementation methods; requiring contractors to have knowledge with poorly implemented, maintained and architectured networks does not necessarily provide the right ‘qualifications’ for sustaining an efficient and resilient infrastructure which we want to sustain and modernize for the Air Force; understanding the commercial technology solutions used in sustaining the AFNET should be more important than unique experience with the AFNet. Will the government consider modifying this requirement to reduce barriers to competition ? | Removed bullet #1 requiring AFNet experience. |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.13.1 | Can the government change the term from "CAC" to "Smart cards or tokens"? you don’t need explicit understanding of the common access card (CAC) to know how this capability works | Concur. Changed TO PWS to reflect "smart card/token (such as CAC)" |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.15.1.1 | Can the government change this requirement to 2-3 years of experience? 7 years of experience is excessive as most successful VTC operators can pick up this legacy technology in 2-3 years | 2.1.15.1.1 is the VTC lead and is a more senior position due to the heavy system use by MAJCOM senior leaders. The lead is responsible for leading the technician team, designing specific configurations, troubleshooting Tier 3 issues, and assisting AFRC with innovation in this area. The standard VTC Operators are described in 2.1.15.1.2 |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.2 | Tactical Local Area Network Encryptor (TACLANE) is historically mischaracterized as TACLANES when it should be TACLANEs, will the government address this issue in the final solicitiation? | Changed all TACLANES references to TACLANEs |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.2.1.1 | This statement appears to be written to imply the government is looking to 'sole source' this to the incumbent. AFNet uses a myriad of commercial technologies in stovepiped and inefficient implementation methods; requiring contractors to have knowledge with poorly implemented, maintained and architectured networks does not necessarily provide the right ‘qualifications’ for sustaining an efficient and resilient infrastructure which we want to sustain and modernize for the Air Force; understanding the commercial technology solutions used in sustaining the AFNET should be more important than unique experience with the AFNet. Will the government consider modifying this requirement in a manner that is not a barrier to competition? | Removed bullet #1 requiring AFNet experience. |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.2.2.1 | This statement appears to be written to imply the government is looking to 'sole source' this to the incumbent. AFNet uses a myriad of commercial technologies in stovepiped and inefficient implementation methods; requiring contractors to have knowledge with poorly implemented, maintained and architectured networks does not necessarily provide the right ‘qualifications’ for sustaining an efficient and resilient infrastructure which we want to sustain and modernize for the Air Force; understanding the commercial technology solutions used in sustaining the AFNET should be more important than unique experience with the AFNet.Will the government consider modifying this requirement in a manner that is not a barrier to competition? | Removed bullet #1 requiring AFNet experience. |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.3.1 | This statement appears to be written to imply the government is looking to 'sole source' this to the incumbent AFNet uses a myriad of commercial technologies in stovepiped and inefficient implementation methods; requiring contractors to have knowledge with poorly implemented, maintained and architectured networks does not necessarily provide the right ‘qualifications’ for sustaining an efficient and resilient infrastructure which we want to sustain and modernize for the Air Force; understanding the commercial technology solutions used in sustaining the AFNET should be more important than unique experience with the AFNet. Will the government consider modifying this requirement to reduce barriers to competition ? | Removed bullet #1 requiring AFNet experience. |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.3.1 | Can government clarify that five years experience is required for MDM solutions, generally speaking, vice 5 years with each of the specific tools? | Task Order updated to reflect at least 5 years technical experience with Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions, with experience with the current VMware AirWatch and Workspace One Access environments highly desired |
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.6.1 | Is this statement writtent to imply the government is looking to 'sole source' this to the incumbent? AFRC and AFNet uses a myriad of commercial technologies in stovepiped and inefficient implementation methods; requiring contractors to have knowledge with poorly implemented, maintained and architectured networks does not necessarily provide the right ‘qualifications’ for sustaining an efficient and resilient infrastructure which we want to sustain and modernize for the Air Force; understanding the commercial technology solutions used in sustaining the AFNET should be more important than unique experience with AFRC and AFNet. Will the government consider modifying this requirement to reduce barriers to competition ? | Suggested change: |
Qualifications Required to Perform These Services:
• At least 3 years technical experience in DoD/AFNet.
• At least 3 years technical experience utilizing PowerShell.
| Attch 3- TO PWS | Para 2.1.9.1 | This statement appears to be written to imply the government is looking to 'sole source' this to the incumbent AFNet uses a myriad of commercial technologies in stovepiped and inefficient implementation methods; requiring contractors to have knowledge with poorly implemented, maintained and architectured networks does not necessarily provide the right ‘qualifications’ for sustaining an efficient and resilient infrastructure which we want to sustain and modernize for the Air Force; understanding the commercial technology solutions used in sustaining the AFNET should be more important than unique experience with the AFNet. Will the government consider modifying this requirement to reduce barriers to competition ? | Removed bullet #1 specific to AFNet. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .