RFP_Questions_and_Responses_-_Set_4.pdf

Questions Set #4

DATE QUESTION GOVT RESPONSE

20‐Jun‐19

RFP: Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost and PWS 2.4.4.15.3. Pg 3 of 40 The CLINs include only Labor, Data, Travel, the Post Award Conference, and Phase‐in. There is no CLIN for Other Direct Costs (ODCs). For example, PWS 2.4.4.15.3 requires the contractor to provide a training facility… The current CLIN structure does not support allocating training facility costs to the program. Would the Government consider adding an ODC CLIN?

The Government has added a CLIN in Amendment #4 to address this question. This CLIN will include all the necessary equipment as described in the PWS.

25‐Jun‐19

The contractor shall provide a training facility. Classroom capacity not to exceed (NTE) 35 students for lectures and computer labs; with not less than (NLT) eight (8) lectures/computer labs per year, located in San Antonio (within a 25 mile radius of Bldg. 2000, JBSA Lackland). Subject training shall be developed to facilitate online video ingest and archive. Will the Government provide a CLIN for ODCs (i.e., 35 laptops)

The Government has added a CLIN in Amendment #4 to address this question. This CLIN will include all the necessary equipment as described in the PWS.

26‐Jun‐19

PWS 2.4.4.15.3, Appendix D Issue/Question: Will the 35 students be able to bring their own GFE laptops to the training room/computer lab? Or is the contractor expected to provide 35 computers? If the contractor must provide 35 computers for the lab can you please specify minimum requirements for hardware, software, and connectivity?

1. The contractor will provide the computers as specified in the

PWS.

2. Please see the PWS for the minimum requirement for each computer.

26‐Jun‐19

PWS 2.4.4.15.3, Appendix D Issue/Question: Will any of the training require VPN access to NIPR from an off‐post location? We train the DEPO system so our instructors used to have to VPN into DEPO to walk students through how to use it. VPN can be very tricky and subject to latency during high traffic times so we had to develop some work‐arounds. Anyhow, it is important to clarify if any of the course content or systems trained are behind NIPR.

VPN is not required.

20‐Jun‐19

Attachment 4, Total Evlauated Price Worksheet:

1) Will the Government consider adding a Training CLIN or Other Direct Costs (ODC) CLIN to allow the contractor to cover costs associated with training (e.g. training materials, facilities, computer labs )?

2) Alternatively, how does the Government want/require the contractor to account for Other Direct Costs (ODCs) related to the training requirements under this contract?

3) Will training be separately funded under this contract?

1) The Government has added a FFP to address cost associated with provision of training facility.

2) The offeror should account for all costs associated with off‐ site training at the offeror's facility as described in the PWS excluding training materials have been developed using GFE and printed using government print plant using the newly added

CLIN.

3) Funding associated with this work will be attached to the new training CLIN.

28‐Jun‐19 From reading the PWS, it is unclear of when questions and proposals are due. Would you please clarify?

For questions due date, see Attachment 08, Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1 para b. Proposal due date is listed in para f of page 2 of Attachment 08, Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1.

28‐Jun‐19 Is this requirement out on a specific GWAC? No

28‐Jun‐19 Should proposal layout correspond to the evaluation factors/subfactors or the Performance Work Statement (PWS)? Proposal layout should conform with directions as found in Attachment 08, Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1.

28‐Jun‐19 Due to the extensive questions recently released, impacting requirements and approach, is the government willing to grant an extension?

As of Amendment #4, the due date for the solicitation has been extended to 22 July 2019 as amended in 52.212‐1

28‐Jun‐19 To Clarify, can a critical subcontractor submit a past performance in which they served as the subcontractor? Yes

28‐Jun‐19 PWS 2.4.4.15.3 (Page 15) and Appendix D (Page 52) Can government please verify number of classroom training sessions.

Page 15 mentions not less than 8 lectures/computer labs per year, in San Antonio. Page 52 notes an estimated 73 courses per year at various locations. Are the 73 able to be “pre‐recorded”/archived video courses, or are they live?

The estimated courses per year is 73 courses. The number of lectures/computer labs/year provided at the contractors training facility will be NO MORE THAN 8 per year for a three day course at 8 hours per day over a 5 year period (i.e. a maximum of 960 hours over the lifetime of the contract.

28‐Jun‐19

Attachment 08, Addendum FAR 52.212‐1, (d) (1) Submittal Table Ref: Volume III, Past Performance “The following types of pages are not counted towards the 70 page limit (cover pages, table of contents, Subcontractor/teaming member consent forms and acronym lists).” Please confirm the comment above applies to the Technical volume only and was added to the Past Performance portion of the table in error.

Yes, this applies only to the Technical Volume and not Volume III, Past Performance. Attachment 08, Addendum to FAR 52.212‐ 1 has been corrected.

28‐Jun‐19

Our understanding is that we need to have a facility clearance in order to hire TS clearance personnel. We don't have facility clearance, but we do have a JV with another small business who has facility clearance. The existing JV ( non SBA ) is between XXX 8(a) and an SBA small business. XXX is the managing partner who has over 51% of the ownership. Will this satisfy the facility clearance requirement? Are there any JV specific requirements for this solicitation?

If you are submitting an offer as a JV, the JV must have a facility clearance under the Security rules. Individual entities' status under the JV do not qualify in order to hire TS clearance personnel.

28‐Jun‐19

Attachment 08, Instructions and Notice to Offerors, Volume IV – Price, (ii)(A), Bullet 6 and Attachment 03, Professional Compensation Plan Model Issue/Question: Could the Government please clarify the following discrepancy. In the reference part of Attachment 08s, it indicates that Offeror should map labor categories and salary support data from Salary.com using National data as part of our completion of Attachment 03. In instruction #1 of Attachment 03, the Offeror is instructed to use Region 1. Could you please clarify?

Attachment 03 Instruction #1 will be changed to use National Data.

28‐Jun‐19 Please confirm that Fully Burdened Rates are to be provided for all Regions. Yes

28‐Jun‐19 If only Region 3 will be used for the TEP, how will the information from the other regions be used?

The TEP is used per Addendum to FAR 52.212‐2 to create TP list.

The fully burdened rates will be incorporated into the contract as the basis for future Task Orders.

28‐Jun‐19

Reference the Government’s answer to the question regarding tables and figures, “The Government has reviewed this request and determined that Times New Roman, 12 pt. font should be utilized throughout the document, including tables and figures.”, we understand the requirement for Times New Roman, 12 pt. font applies to proposal content including tables/figures.

However, Is it permissible for offerors to include graphics (i.e. pictures/illustrations/logos) using an alternate font, as long as:

1. The text is legible for pictures/illustrations where the text adds to the message the offeror is trying to convey

2. The size of the text is irrelevant where the actual text is not germane to the message being conveyed in the illustration.

Yes

28‐Jun‐19

Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1 Instructions and Notices to Offerors A7037‐19‐R‐A001 Attachment 08 (A) Subfactor 1 – Staffing and Skillset Management Plan (SSMP): states “The offeror shall also define and map each labor category to the skillset, experience, and certifications needed to fulfill the PWS”. Appendix C of the PWS appears to define each skill set. For example, Office Coordination and Administration appears to be a skill set.

1) Is this a true assumption on our part?

2) Also, with regard to mapping to a Labor Category, does the government want the Labor Category description as well as the labor category itself?

1) Appendix C is a Forecasted Level of Effort. Depending on the business strategy of the offeror, Appendix C may or may not represent necessary skill sets.

2) No, the Labor Category is sufficient.

28‐Jun‐19

Attachment 8 Addendum to 52‐212‐1 Page 5 Subfactor 3 – Technical Expertise and Capability

The government states that “[t]he offeror shall describe their approach to fulfilling the requirements of the PWS.”

1. Is the intent of this Subfactor to have the offeror describe their approach for fulfilling the PWS requirements from the perspective of program/task management or from the perspective of purely technical solutions/approaches? Or is it Both?

2. Is the intent of this Subfactor to have the offeror describe their approach for fulling the Specific Tasks (outlined in Section 2 of the PWS) AND to have the offeror describe their approach to fulfilling the requirements in other sections of the PWS (e.g. Quality Control, Deliverables at Section 4.2.1; Operations Surge; Kick off Meeting, Periodic Progress Meetings, Phase In/Phase Out)?

3. Will the government confirm the exact PWS requirements that must be addressed as part of the Subfactor?

4. If the government is requiring the offeror to describe its approach to program or task order management, would the Government consider increasing the page limitation and extending the due date for proposals?

1. Both;

2. All sections of the PWS;

3. All sections of the PWS;

4. No

28‐Jun‐19

Subfactor 3 – Technical Expertise and Capability The government states that the offeror shall “Describe how the PWS tasks impact the Air Force, Department of Defense, and Intelligence Community.”

1. Is the government asking that the offeror describe how the offeror’s approaches/solutions to fulfill the PWS tasks will impact AF, DoD, and IC?

2. Is the government asking the offeror to address impact to AF, DoD, and IC as it relates to risk, benefit, or both (i.e the risks and/or benefits the offerors work/solutions will introduce to these stakeholders’ organizations/missions/goals)?

1. Yes;

2. All

28‐Jun‐19

Subfactor 4 ‐ Experience

The government states that “[t]he offeror shall present relevant work experience applicable to PWS requirements.” as part of Subfactor 4 (in the Technical Volume).

1. Is the government’s intent to allow only the prime contractor’s experience to be described within Subfactor 4?

2. Can the government confirm that the offeror may include and describe the experience of its subcontractors within Subfactor 4?

3. Is the expectation that the offeror only describe relevant project experience for which it is also including in its Past Performance Volume or can the offeror describe any relevant project experience (regardless of its inclusion in the Past Performance volume)?

4. If subcontractor experience may be described as part of Subfactor 4, will the government consider increasing the page limitation for the Technical Volume so that offeror’s with multiple proposed subcontractors will have the opportunity to fully describe the experience of its team and fully convey relevance to the task areas of the PWS?

1. No, the subcontractor's experience may be described as well;

2. Yes;

3. The offeror may describe relevant project experience not included in the Past Performance volume.

4. No

30‐Jun‐19 1 Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1 Instructions and Notices to Offerors FA7037‐19‐R‐A001 Attachment 08 1 6 (k)(3)(iii)(C) Summary of Past Performance Actions Would the Government consider increasing the Past Performance Summary page in Volume III to 2 pages?

No

30‐Jun‐19 2 Attachment 07 – Scenario PWS 3,4,5, 6 2.1 and 2.3 – 2.11 Would the government clarify if there is a requirement for the Offeror to respond to the paragraphs marked “Reserved” in the Scenario PWS?

No

1‐Jul‐19

Answers to Questions Set 2 Attachment 10 The last question on page 4 of the Answers to Questions Set 2 indicates Attachment 10 was updated in Amendment 0001 to reflect 2080 hours (for the cells in column F, Labor Categories tab). The released Amendment 0001 version of Attachment 10 reflects 1880. Would the Government please correct Attachment 10 to reflect 2080 as indicated in the referenced answer?

Attachment 10 was updated to reflect 1880 hours via Amendment 0001 to the Solicitation posted to FBO on June 24, 2019. The reference to 2080 hours in the Government response to questions spreadsheet was an error.

1‐Jul‐19

Attachment 03, Professional Compensation Plan Model Issue/Question: In reference to Attachment 03, Professional Compensation Plan, could you please clarify if all Labor Categories as developed and priced for Exhibit 2 are to be mapped to the 5 Labor Categories provided by the Government in Attachment. With such a robust contract of needs, it would be difficult to map all of the Offeror developed Labor Categories to just 5. The other challenge would be if they were mapped, they would most likely be made up of multiple labor categories from industry sources raising the question which labor category information would you use for the basis of completing Attachment 03.

No, all labor categories developed for Exhibit 2 won't be mapped to the five labor categories. Only the five labor categories will be mapped.

1‐Jul‐19

1 Attachment 10 ‐ Floor Base Hourly Rate Worksheet Labor Categories Tab In Amendment 0002, Questions and Responses, Set 2, the Government states that in Amendment 0001, Attachment 10 was updated to reflect 2,080 hours. The update that was made in Amendment 0001 was to change the hours from 1,792 to 1,880. The updated hours of 1,880 doesn’t reflect total hours in a year. Request that the Government update the calculation to reflect 2,080 hours, which reflects total hours in a year.

Attachment 10 was updated to reflect 1880 hours via Amendment 0001 to the Solicitation posted to FBO on June 24, 2019. While 2080 hours could be used, the Government determined that for consistency throughout the solicitation, 1880 would be used.

2‐Jul‐19

Attachment 8 – Instructions to Offerors 1 And 7 (d) Submittal instructions, and

(4) Volume IV ‐ Price The written instructions in para. (d) on page 1 states “The RFP response shall consist of four (4) separate .pdf files as indicated in Table 1: Submittal Table.” However, the instructions for Volume IV – Price beginning on page 7 requires Attachments 03, 04, 10, and Exhibit 2 to be submitted in MS Excel format. Also – are we correct in assuming the Professional Compensation Plan Narrative will be in .pdf format?

As you noted, the files which are not in PDF form will not be part of the four separate files. The Professional Compensation Plan Narrative will be in .pdf format.

2‐Jul‐19

Attachment 8 – Instructions to Offerors N/A (d) Submittal instructions The solicitation does not define the submission requirements for proposed critical subcontractors (>25%). Can the Government please define what the submission requirements are (if any) for subcontractors?

The submission requirement for critical subcontractors is found in Attachment 08, (3) Volume III ‐ Past Performance

(i) General. The RFP does not have a submission requirement for non‐critical subcontractors.

3‐Jul‐19 Ref: Amendment 2: As a result of removing 2.2.4.2 Front‐end Information Now (FIN) Development and Support from Exhibit 1 PWS 20190701, will the Government also be removing Performance Objective #8 SS Front‐end Information Now (FIN) Development and Support from Exhibit 1 ‐ PWS?

Yes, the PWS will be amended to reflect update.

3‐Jul‐19 Ref: Amendment 2: Per Attachment 5, Conformance Review Checklist, of the solicitation, the SF33 is to be completed and submitted while Attachment 8, Addendum to FAR 52.212‐1, states the SF1449 is to be completed and submitted. Will the Government please confirm that the SF1449 is the correct form to be completed and submitted with the Offeror’s proposal?

The SF1449 is be completed and submitted. Attachment 5 ‐ Conformance Review Checklist will be modified to reflect this.

3‐Jul‐19

Attachment 03 Professional Compensation Plan Government Labor Categories are not consistent with the Labor Categories identified in Appendix C – Support Services Data: Forecasted Level of Effort. Can the Government confirm the following;

a) That IT Security Control Assessors (Intermediate) cross maps to the Security Control Assessors?

b) That IT Security Control Assessors (Senior) cross maps to Lead Security Control Assessor?

c) That Documentation Manager cross maps to Document Manager?

d) That Information Assurance Program Lead Support Services cross maps to Cybersecurity Program Manager (CPM)?

e) That AF IC Security Engineering, Enterprise Solutions cross maps to Security Engineering?

You have made an accurate assessment of the Government's intent both with Attachment 03 and Appendix C of the PWS.

3‐Jul‐19

Attachment 10, Floor Base Hourly Rate Worksheet Issue/Question: This is a 2‐part question. In reference to Attachment 10, in your example given for Janitor II, it creates some confusion with Industry. The median salary (column E), hourly rate (column F) and hourly rate at 95% (column G) are clear.

The column example that creates confusion is C4 or the $35 rate. Part 1: Is the column marked “Proposed Base Hourly Rate without fringe” a Direct Labor rate? Part 2: Since in your example, the $35 rate is being carried over to the “Escalation of Base Rates” worksheet, in this example, the contractor would be certifying to a floor rate of $35/hour for a salary or $35 * 2080 or an annual salary of $72,800?

1. It is the rate that the employee can expect to be paid before taxes without any fringe added.

2. The contractor is certifying that the hourly rate will not fall below the salary.com' s median annual Salary / 1880 hours. See earlier question set for reasoning behind adoption of 1880 hours.

3‐Jul‐19

Attachment 10, Floor Base Hourly Rate Worksheet Issue/Question: In reference to Attachment 10, the example divides the salary.com median annual salary by 1880. However, this is not how salary.com determines their annual salaries. They use 2080 as a full year. In the example, by dividing by 1880, the hour base rate is inflated above the salary.com rate up to a base annual salary of $33,196.80 ($15.96*2080=$33,196.80). Please clarify. Is it the intent that offerors certify to the higher hourly base rate than the rate provided by salary.com?

For consistency across all labor rate submittals, 1880 was selected. In this particular instance, by dividing by 1880 instead of 2080 does represent a higher hourly rate, but this is the methodology decided upon by the Government and will be consistent across all offerors. The Government believes this will not be a burden for a responsive contractor to meet, as the floor doesn't include other factors like security clearance and special skills/education.

Attachment 10, Floor Base Hourly Rate Worksheet Issue/Question: In reference to Attachment 10 and the Loss Rate (Instructions to Offeror). Since the Government is asking an Offeror to establish a Loss Rate, which will become part of the Service Summary of the contract, why is the Government compelled to require an Attachment 10 when the offeror will already have incentive to retain and hire a work force to ensure an acceptable Loss Rate is maintained?

The Government is making a determination on Price Realism as part of the pricing evaluation. Loss Rate does not provide the necessary insight into the offeror's practices to make that determination and the Floor Base Hourly Rate Worksheet does provide that insight.

The Government also recognizes that other factors beside meeting or exceeding the floor base hourly rates will assure contractor employee retention. Thus the Loss Rate has been included to recognize all factors which go into employee retention.

3‐Jul‐19

Attachment 10, Floor Base Hourly Rate Worksheet Issue/Question: In reference to Attachment 10, Floor Base Hourly Rate Worksheet, in Column E “Median Annual Salary from Salary.com”, could the Government please clarify what they define as the “median”?

Attachment 06 is an example of the submittal page from Salary.com. The median annual salary in this example is the highest point on the represented bell curve. The median annual salary from salary.com is the highest point on the represented bell curve for any submitted job categories.

The government lists 5 training courses in Attachment 11 with two of the classes showing as “Coming Spring 2020” and “TBD” for the length of the course.

1. Does the government intend to have all five of these courses included within the scope of the training work to be awarded under the IS3 contract?

2. Does the government want offerors to base their pricing of the FFP Training CLIN on projected ODCs associated with only these five courses?

3. Will the government be setting the ceiling for the Training CLIN (much like with the Travel CLIN) and allow the contractor to bill against that CLIN to cover its actual ODCs for to training?

4. Will the successful contractor for IS3 be responsible for developing the Security Control Implementation course and the Assessment Workshop?

5. Are the 5 courses in Attachment 11 the minimum training courses and course requirements expected under the IS3 contract?

6. Is there a possibility that the government may want/need training beyond these 5 courses?

1. Yes;

2. See Amendment 4;

3. See Amendment 4;

4. Yes;

5. Yes;

6. Yes

3‐Jul‐19

Ref: PWS: At Section 2.6.1.2, the government notes that the contractor will provide 24x7x365 support.

1. Will the government confirm exactly what the contractor will be providing 24x7x365 shift coverage for?

AF IC Security Coordination Center

3‐Jul‐19

At Section 2.6.1.3, the government notes that the contractor will “provide services that include research, development, and release of AF IC Task Orders and notifications to the AF IC.”

1. Is it the government’s intent to include acquisition support type work within the scope of the IS3 contract?

2. What kind of task orders will the contractor be required to release or manage?

3. Who will the task orders be issued to?

4. Has the government considered the OCI (Organizational Conflict of Interest) that are/may be presented with this type of work within the larger scope of the PWS? If so, what is the contractor’s responsibility regarding any apparent or actual OCIs?

1. No ‐ this paragraph refers to task orders within the AF IC (i.e.

require IC unit to update software on system x);

2. Internal to the AF IC Cyber Security Task Orders;

3. AF Intelligence Community, Cyber Security Personnel, and MAJCOM Chief Information Security Officer;

4. No OCI exists.

At Section 2.6.1.5 re Exercise Planning,

1. Will the government confirm if any or all of the following exercise planning is within the scope of the exercise planning intended for the IS3 work:

o Incident Response training scenarios?

o Ethical Hacking Blackhat or Red Teaming training exercises?

o CONUS/OCONUS Information warfare, world‐wide combat weapons battle scenario training exercises?

o National/International unified endeavored cyber network defense exercises

The Government can confirm that the exercise is a National Cyber Defense Exercise.

3‐Jul‐19

At Section 2.6.1.7, the government notes that the contractor will “develop SOPs and provide training on existing and new technologies to government personnel. “

1. Will the contractor be required to train on only the technology that it brings to the contract or will the contractor also be required to train on technology provided to the government by other companies?

2. What are the existing technologies the contractor will be expected to train government personnel on?`

1. The contractor is not being asked or solicited to bring any technology to the contract as part of this PWS – if the contractor wishes to propose a new/different technology beyond what the government is currently using or plans to procure, the proposal will be separate from this effort. The contractor will be required to train government personnel on existing technologies and any future technologies procured.

2. Existing technologies in use are widely‐used industry standard enterprise systems and software (e.g. Tanium, ArcSight, Tenable ACAS, etc.).

3‐Jul‐19

At Section 2.4.3.1, the government states the contractor shall “have a proficient working level knowledge of the AF IC workflow template and the AF IC RMF A&A Workflow Tool on day one of contract award.”

1. Will the government confirm what the exact A&A Workflow Tool is?

2. Is this tool Xacta, eMass, or something else?

The current A&A workflow tool is Telos Xacta Information Assurance Manager.

3‐Jul‐19 Attachment 01 Scenario Response: Does the offeror need to provide a response to the RESERVED items under specific task

2.0 EX; 2.4. Plans, Policies, and Procedures. RESERVED

No

3‐Jul‐19 What is the current RMF authorization timeline?

Timeline varies based on the complexity and amount of resources applied to the effort. In every situation the first 5 RMF steps must be successfully completed.

3‐Jul‐19 Attachment 11 does not provide Training Course information; it is a SOFA contract clause. Is this a discrepancy and will training information be provided?

A duplication was made on the attachment numbers. A change will be made to correct this duplication. Please see Attachment 14 ‐ Courses (Present and Future)

8‐Jul‐19 What is the evaluation criteria for the loss rate?

The loss rate will be evaluated as part of the Staffing and Skillset Management Plan along with the other required information within this section utilizing Table 3A as found in Addendum to FAR 52.212‐2. A higher loss rate represents more risk to the Government.

8‐Jul‐19 How many FTE’s are historically employed across the on a Task Orders? For example, losing 1 FTE on a 5 FTE Task order is 20%, while losing 1 FTE on 20 FTE Task Order is only 5%.

1. The number of FTE's on previous contracts will not be disclosed as it is proprietary to firms providing those services.

Further this action is different than what it was in the past, and the number of FTEs employed across the task order is not relevant.

2. The loss rate is calculated based on all employees on all active task orders. Each loss rate will be based on the total number of employees each offers proposes (and hired if the successful offeror) and the losses against that number.

8‐Jul‐19 Should the loss rate be based on all the FTE’s in Appendix C Forecasted Level of Effort? The loss rate should be based on the number of employees the contractor anticipates losing (for any reason). The number of FTEs supplied will be a business decision made by the contractor which meets the Government's requirement.