CS_TAT_RFP_Q A_22Jan15.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 43 KB Posted Jan 22, 2015

Attached to: AFICA IAC CS TAT Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: FA8075-15-R-0001
Issued by: Department of the Air Force Air Combat Command

About this file

From the source

The Government hereby provides questions and responses for CS TAT Solicitation FA8075-15-R-0001. NOTE 1 The official CS TAT solicitation is FA8075-15-R-0001 and any references herein should reflect this. NOTE 2 The correct dates for Section J Attachment J-6 Sample TAT 1 F O tab should reflect a period of performance of 1 Dec 2015 - 30 Nov 2016 for the Base Year and 1 Dec 20XX - 30 Nov 20XX for Option Years. NOTE 3 At least 90 of the work for Sample TAT 1 will be performed at the Government Site and.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to AFICA IAC CS TAT, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
CS_TAT_Amendment_2_FBO.docx	DOCX document	Jul 24, 2015
CS_TAT_RFP_Q A_27Jan15.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jan 27, 2015
CS_TAT_Amendment_1_FBO.docx	DOCX document	Jan 13, 2015
15-R-0001_CS_TAT_RFP_6Jan2015_FBO.doc	DOC document	Jan 6, 2015
CS_TAT_RFP_Q A_FBO_Template.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jan 6, 2015

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

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

				As Of 22 Jan 2015
	#	Solicitation Section	Question/Comment	Response
	1	General (Past Performancce)	Will the Past Performance questionnaires completed during the last RFP be accepted for this solicitation or will new ones need to be completed?	In order to be consistent with the new CS TAT RFP (FA8075-15-R-0001) Offerors shall submit updated questionnaires to reflect the new CS TAT RFP.
	2	L5.1 (Page 101)	Will the Government please allow the cost volume narrative to be submitted in PDF format rather than in the J-6 Excel worksheet?	No. Per RFP Section L5.1, Section J attachment J-6 CS TAT Cost/Price Table shall be submitted in excel format ONLY, any other forms such as PDF will not be considered. However, offerors may submit narrative information in their cost volume in PDF format.
	3	RFP Section M1.0	RFP Section M1.0 states, "The government reserves the right to dissolve the Partial Small Business Set aside pool for the CS TAT acquisition if less than the target number of small businesses are eligible for award in accordance with the evaluation criteria or based on the SSA's determination that it is in the Government's best interest." If the Government dissolves the Partial Small Business Set aside pool, will the offerors who submitted compliant proposals within this pool be awarded contracts within the Full and Open competition pool?	Yes the Government reserves the right to dissolve the Partial Small Business Set aside pool. However, the odds of that happening based on market research, Q&As and interest from Small Business will most likely never occur. Please refer to RFP Section M1.0 and attachment L-5 and all the different sections of the RFP especially in L and M required to submit in the appropriate pool. For the Full and Open pool each Offeror will have to make a business decision with the fact that there are currently nine (9) large businesses currently performing on the current contract and the Government is seeking to award to six (6) offerors in the full and Open pool.
	4	RFP Section H.1.b.4	RFP Section H.1.b.4 states, "If the requirement has an estimated value greater than $3.5M, the Task Order Proposal Request (TOPR) will be sent to every prime contractor in the Unrestricted Full & Open (F&O) competition pool and conversely if the requirement has an estimated value less equal to or less than $3.5M, the TOPR will be sent to every prime contractor in the Partial Small Business set-aside competition pool."
Since the small businesses awarded contracts on CS TAT have the capability to successfully support requirements with values greater that $3.5M, will the contractors in the Partial Small Business set-aside pool also be permitted to compete in the F&O competition pool?	RFP Section H.1.b.4 stays as written.
	5	RFP Section L1.2	RFP Section L1.2 states "Proposal Volume II Past Performance shall be received at the place specified below not later than 4:00 PM Central Time 30 days after Request for Proposal (RFP) release date identified in Block 5 of the SF33." To ensure that everyone interprets this in the same way, would the Government please confirm that the Past Performance Volume is due on February 5, 2015?	Yes based on the date the RFP was released the Past Performance is due no later than 4:00 PM Central Time on February 5, 2015. All other proposals are due no later than 4:00 PM Central Time on February 20, 2015.
	6	RFP Section L2.2.2	RFP Section L2.2.2 reads "Pages shall be numbered sequentially starting with page one (1) for each volume." Typically, a proposal cover sheet is not numbered, the table of contents and cross reference matrix in the volume are numbered with lower-case Roman numerals, and the appendices (i.e., glossary) are numbered indicating the Appendix and the page number (i.e., A-1 for Appendix A). Is this acceptable?	Yes this acceptable. The page one (1) for each volume concerns the beginning of the actual pages that will be counted towards the page count for that proposal volume.
	7	RFP Section L2.2	The last sentence of this section is very difficult to understand. Please clarify if it is asking bidders to provide 2 CDs containing all referenced copies of volumes, or is it referring to two different sets of 2 CDs. Also, please clarify when the CDs are to be submitted.	At the appropriate proposal submission time (30 days after RFP release for Volume II Past Performance due February 5, 2015 and 45 days after RFP for all other proposals (Volumes I, III and IV), Due February 20, 2015.) per RFP Section L2.1 an L2.2 all Offerors shall also submit the appropriate CDs. This means, submit 2 sets of individual CDs containing Volume II information, and submit 2 sets of individual CDs containing Volume I, III and IV information. It is acceptable to submit more than 1 CD as appropriate, if information won't fit on a single CD.
	8	RFP Section L2.2.4	This section refers to a Cross Reference Matrix, but subsequent RFP sections that identify volume content do not mention the matrix. Please clarify whether or not a Cross Reference Matrix is to be included in each volume.	Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis. Therefore, a cross reference matrix is only necessary to help respective evaluators navigate through the offerors different proposal volumes.
	9	RFP Section L3.1	This section identifies Sample TAT 1 as unrestricted F&O, and Sample TAT 2 as partial SB set-aside. Do bidders only responding to F&O need to only propose a solution to Sample TAT 1 and not Sample TAT 2? Do bidders only responding to the partial SB set-aside only need to propose their solution for Sample TAT 2 and not Sample TAT 1?	That is correct.
	10	RFP Section L.4.2.9	This section first asks for the offeror to submit consent letters for each subcontractor/teaming partner, and later says "Should the Offeror not submit a completed consent letter …". This implies that submitting the consent letters is optional based on whether the subcontractors do or do not want their past performance discussed with the Prime contractor. Please clarify that the submission of consent letters is optional.	A consent letter should be submitted, however, if an offeror is unable to receive consent from a potential teaming partner, past performance information for said teaming partner will not be shared with the prime offeror.
	11	RFP Section L5.4.5	This section asks offerors to submit a copy of their cost volume to DCAA. Should this include any sealed cost information from subcontractors/partners?	That is a business decision. The RFP does not mention subcontractors. However, please refer to RFP Section L.5.4.4. In some cases the Prime Offeror might not have all of their subcontractors costing data sealed or otherwise.
	12	RFP Section L3.4.1 and M3.1.5	Section L3.4.1 says the Small Business Subcontracting Plan should include percentage of annual obligation that includes small business as well as other socio-economic small business categories. Section M3.1.5 does not identify a minimum goal for the small business category. Please clarify the minimum goal for the small business category.	Section M3.1.5 is only for other than Small Businesses and spells out that the subcontracting goal is 15% based on total obligated dollars. In other words the 15% applies to Large Businesses only. There is no Small Business Subcontracting Plan required nor is there a subcontracting goal for small businesses.
	13	RFP Section M1.0 and M3.2.3.1	Section M3.2.3.1 identifies a magnitude relevancy of past performance that is based on $10M to be very relevant. This is in conflict with section M1.0 that identifies the Partial Small Business (SB) set-aside pool has a task order dollar threshold of $3.5M and below. We assume this is an oversight and Small Business offerors past performance relevance will be based against the $3.5M threshold. Is this correct?	The Government understands this and is why there is a flexible dollar range for the Offerors to be able to receive a "Relevant" rating for Magnitude of effort (Cost & type of contract) in those ranges that represent efforts involved with similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Please keep in mind that in your question you use "Very Relevant" as if the magnitude of effort (Cost & type of contract) is the only factor for "Relevancy." Per M3.2.3.1 Magnitude of effort (Cost & type of contract) is only one of the four (4) factors that is evaluated for "Relevancy".
	14	RFP Section C, PWS 1.5.2	Based on 1.5.2.1 being General, CDRL A001 starts off with 1.5.2.2. Based on that sequence, 1.5.2.7 should be CDRL A006, but CDRL A006 is only referenced as an action (it is nested) within CDRL A005, 1.5.2.6.
Would the Government please amend the RFP to show CDRL A006, Release of STI, as a PWS element rather than being nested within CDRL A005?	CDRLs A005 and A006 are tied to STI deliverables. Section C, paragraph 1.5.2.6 is the only reference for STI deliverables. Please refer to the specific CDRL(s) for the level of detail that is to be delivered as necessary. This will not be amended.
	15	RFP Section C, PWS 1.5.2	Within PWS 1.5.2.3 Redacted CS TAT - CDRL A002, would the Government please amend the RFP to show CDRL A008, Redacted TAT, as a PWS element rather than being nested within CDRL A002?
Would the Government please amend the RFP to show CDRL A006 as a PWS element rather than being nested within CDRL A005?	CDRLs A002 and A008 are tied to redacted documents. Section C, paragraph 1.5.2.3 is the only reference for redacting requirements. Please refer to the specific CDRL(s) for the level of detail that is to be delivered as necessary. This will not be amended.
	16	RFP Section C, PWS 1.5.2	PWS 1.5.2.11 is the Contract Manpower Reporting (CMR) . Is the CMR a contract deliverable? If so, would the Government please name PWS 1.5.2.11 as CDRL A0012?

CDRL Examples PWS Ref Description CDRL

1.5.2.1 General

1.5.2.2 Monthly Contract Cost Tracking Rpt 0001

1.5.2.3 Redacted CS TAT Contract 0002

1.5.2.4 Weekly Activity Report (WAR) 0003

1.5.2.5 Monthly Metrics Report 0004

1.5.2.6 Quarterly STI Assessment Report 0005

? Release of STI 0006?

1.5.2.7 Final Technical Report (FTR) 0007

? Redacted TAT 0008?

1.5.2.8 Monthly Status Report (MSR) 0009

1.5.2.9 TAT Success Stories 0010

1.5.2.10 Quad Charts 0011

1.5.2.11 Contract Manpower Reporting (CMR) 0012	This is not a contract deliverable. Per Section 2330a of title 10, United States Code (10 USC 2330a), the Secretary of Defense is required to submit to Congress an annual inventory of contracts for services performed during the prior fiscal year for or on behalf of the Department of Defense (DoD). We are delegating this reporting requirement down to the contractor level.
	17	RFP Section I, Clause 52.222-2	a) The use of overtime is authorized under this contract if the overtime premium cost does not exceed to be determined per individual task orders or the overtime premium is paid for work --
For purposes of pricing overtime in offerors bid, would the Government please define the forms of overtime authorized under this clause. Are all of the following types of overtime acceptable for an offeror to use in their bid: Using $100/hr as an example, would the Government please define overtime as either straighttime overtime (1x$100 or $100/hr), Overtime (1.5x$100 or $150/hr), Doubletime (2x$100 or $200/hr) or all the above as authorized forms of overtime on the contract	Overtime, if required and the type of OT not specifically spelled out, will be a business decision made by individual offerors.
	18	RFP Section C, PWS 1.5.1.3	When resumes are required, will the Government provide a desired format for the submission?	Resumes are not required anywhere in the RFP for CS TAT contract, however, may be required at the individual Task Order level and desired format provided at that time.
	19	RFP Section C, PWS 1.5.2.2 & 1.7.2.d	The Monthly Contract Cost Tracking Report lists Security Clearance requirements. Since 1.7.2.d states that any costs incurred for clearances is NOT allowed against the contract, what cost related information is being reported?	Column S of CRDL A001 (RFP Section C, PWS 1.5.2.2) only refers to type e.g. Secret/Top Secret. It does not want the contractor to list cost associated with clearance requirement. Per 1.7.2.d-- direct costs incurred for clearances are NOT allowed against the contract.
	20	RFP Section G.2 last paragraph	The second last statement in the paragraph states that "paying by sequential ACRN would not work, nor would any of the other 11 scenarios." How does the Government plan to resolve this?	There is no resolution necessary. The information in RFP Section G 2 are payment instructions to DFAS in order for payments to be made according to contractor invoices.
	21	RFP Section L3.5	Does the Acronym List, to be included in the Technical Volume, count against the page-count limit?	See RFP Section L.2.2.6. Acronym List or Glossary of Terms will not count against page limitations.
	22	RFP Section L3.5	Is the Acronym list to be all inclusive, or only listing the acronyms used in the Technical Volume submittal?	See RFP Section L.2.2.6. Acronym List, which will not count against page limitations, should be submitted with each volume.
	23	L.2.2.1, L3.2.1, & L.3.3.1	Will the Government please amend L2.2.1 to also exclude from the page limits the CMMI, ISO 9001:2008, and DSS facility clearance documentation required in L3.2.1 (CMMI & ISO certs) and L3.3.1 (facility clearance)?	CMMI, ISO 9001:2008, and DSS facility clearance documentation are considered certifications and will not be counted against the page count.
	24	L1.2	Will the Government please confirm the submission deadline for Volume II is 1600 CST 5FEB or otherwise specifiy the appropriate deadline?	This is correct. Based on the date the RFP was released the Past Performance is due no later than 4:00 PM Central Time on February 5, 2015. All other proposals are due no later than 4:00 PM Central Time on February 20, 2015.
	25	L5.4.4 & pricing worksheet instructions	Will the Government please confirm that sealed packages are only to be submitted for subcontractors that are proposed to perform more than 10% of the total cost for the Sample TAT?	See RFP Section L.5.4.4. This is correct.
	26	Sample TAT 12.0	Per 12.0, the Sample TAT requires that Offerors propose a solution that fully complies with ANSI-EIA 748 EVMS. EVMS requires significant additional reporting and management overhead and costs and may not be considered the most appropriate methodology for much of the work to be performed under this Sample TAT. In addition, there does not appear to be a requirement to propose an EVMS-compliant management approach to overall MAC, which is consistent with the HD and DS MACs. Would the government please consider removing compliance with the ANSI-EIA 748 EVMS standard from the Sample TAT?	Section 12.0 lists "Applicable" Publications and References not "Mandatory" Publications and References. In accordance with RFP paragraph L.3.2.1, offerors may suggest proposed tools/enhancements and describe how their experience will be leveraged in developing a unique and tailored approach to meet each of the Sample TAT requirements. As with HD and DS there is not a requirement to propose an EVMS-compliant management approach to overall MAC; however, certain TATs may require one.
	27	CDRL Attachments	Within the following CDRLs there is a reference that the format for the CDRL is provided however the files themselves are missing. Please provide the files so that we may better understand the CDRL requirements. A001 - CDRL_A001.xlsx; A003 - CDRL_A003_Attachment.doc; A004 - CDRL_A004_Attachment.doc and CDRL_A004_Attachment.xls; A005 - CDRL_A005.docx; A009 - A009_DID.pdf; A010 - CDRL_A010_Attachment.doc and CDRL_A010_Attachment_2.docx; A011 - CDRL_A011_Attachment.docx	Offerors are hereby informed that some CDRL Exhibits have attachments which can be found by clicking on the paperclip icon in the left margin of the individual CDRL Exhibit.
	28	H.3 TAT OCI	The sample task involves SETA type work. Since this task will not be awarded, we assume this does not pose an Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI) issue for non-SETA type work that a contractor is currently performing on other contracts? Please confirm?	Please refer to RFP Section L6.4.
	29	Attachment J-8, Sample TAT 1, Section 4.0 Deliverables/Reporting Requirements	For estimating purposes, Deliverable 4.7 Project POA&M shows a Quantity of 60 required over the total Period of Performance; however, the Due Date/Frequency is described as 30 days ARO for all designated projects, quarterly thereafter. These two descriptors appear to be inconsistent. For estimating purposes, Contractor requests confirmation on the total Quantity and the Due Date/Frequency.	For Project POA&Ms Column Quantity (indicate if qty. pertains to one year or to entire PoP) should read: 20 PoP and will be updated in the CS TAT contract.
	30	Attachment J-8, Sample TAT 1, Section 4.0 Deliverables/Reporting Requirements	For estimating purposes, Deliverable 4.76 M&S 3D Animation Repository shows a Quantity of 1 required over the total Period of Performance; however, the Due Date/Frequency is described as 45 days ARO for all designated projects, monthly thereafter. These two descriptors appear to be inconsistent. For estimating purposes, Contractor requests confirmation on the total Quantity and the Due Date/Frequency.	For M&S 3D Animation Repository Column Due Date / Frequency (all days are calendar days) should read: 45 days ARO for all designated projects should be updated monthly thereafter. To further clarify, the Contractor is required to create a M&S repository per 4.76, it should be updated monthly. This will be updated in the CS TAT contract.
	31	L5.4.1 DIRECT LABOR RATES	The RFP identifies the requirement for a narrative description of related qualifications, duties, and responsibilities within the Section J, J-6 CS TAT Cost/Price Table or as an attachment to the cost proposal. Can this attachment to the cost proposal (ie. Cost Volume Narrative) be provided in MS Word.	Yes.
	32	L5.4.2 INDIRECT COST RATES AND/OR FACTORS	The offeror is required to Identify all indirect cost rates (such as, fringe benefits, labor overhead, material overhead, G&A, etc.) and applicable allocation bases by Operating Fiscal Year (OFY) in Section J, J-6 CS TAT Cost/Price Table. If composite rates are used, provide the calculations used in deriving the composite rates. Can the Offeror add a worksheet to the J6 Table (in Excel) to illustrate the composite rate calculation?	Yes.
	33	M.3.2.3.1	Relevancy Criteria, the criteria to evaluate the relevancy of the magnitude of contract is defined by IDIQ and Delivery/Task Order. For each of these contract types, the value range is defined from $10M (Not Relevant) to $100M (Very Relevant) for an IDIQ type contract and $500k (Not Relevant) to $10M (Very Relevant) for a Delivery/Task Order type contract. Are these the same relevancy targets for both the Unrestricted Full and Open (F&O) and Partial Small Business (SB) Set-Aside competition pools? Based on the award target of $3.5M or less for the Partial SB Set-Aside competition pool, the thresholds seem to be larger than what would normally be viewed as a relevant Delivery/Task Order for this solicitation.	The Government understands this and is why there is a flexible dollar range for the Offerors to be able to receive a "Relevant" rating ($2M and less than $10M) for Magnitude of effort (Cost & type of contract) in those ranges that represent efforts involved with similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Please keep in mind that in your question you use "Relevant" as if the magnitude of effort (Cost & type of contract) is the only factor for "Relevancy." Per M3.2.3.1 Magnitude of effort (Cost & type of contract) is only one of the four (4) factors that is evaluated for "Relevancy".
	34	J-6_CS_TAT_Cost_Price_Model,
L.5.0	Per the 'Directions' tab within J-6_CS_TAT_Cost_Price_Model, the 'Cost Model Checklist' includes the following guidance, "If applicable, supporting information for additional indirect rates are provided in the Cost Volume Narrative". However, per Section L.2.1, Volume II Cost/Price, Attachment J-6 shall be submitted in excel format ONLY. In order to comply with the requirements in Section L.5.4.1 and L.5.4.2, in order to idenity the basis of proposaed rates, are Offerors able to submit a Cost Narrative in WORD. Or shall we include additional tabs in Attachment J-6 EXCEL with this information.	Yes cost narrative can be submitted in WORD. Most of the time Offerors submit all their narrative in word and or a PDF format. However the excel J6 Cost Price Model Attachment with the actual first 8 TABS shall be in excel as provided.
	35	J-9 Sample TAT 2	Section 2.0, Objective, the last line states "This TAT requires Contractor to define a system of systems appraoch to improve the security posture for, two systems". Are we to assume the two systems referred in this objective are the robotic exoskeleton and HART architecture?	That is correct. The two systems are HART and the Robotic Exoskeleton System.
	36	J-9 Sample TAT 2	Per Task 5, HART M&S, in order to produce a model for the integration of HART into the robotic exoskeleton system, can Offerors have additional assumptions regarding the target operational environment. This target environment will impact the modeling and testing methodologies used throughout the integration approach	Yes, the Offeror may assume an operational environment.
	37	1.3	Will the Government further elaborate on its working relationships with such agencies as DARPA and IARPA and how contractors are expected to work with these and other R&D organizations in DoD and the Intelligence Community?	DARPA and DTIC both reside under the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. The DoD IACs have no formal relationship with DARPA/IARPA and other R&D organizations and the Intelligence Community except insofar as they may use the IACs MAC contracts, like any other government agency, to meet their research & analysis requirements.
	38	L4.2.7	If an Offeror is participating on multiple teams and its past performance is used in more than one proposal, is the client of the Offeror required to submit a separate Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for each instance (proposal) for which the PPQ is used or may the Offeror's client submit only one completed PPQ for each specific contract/project?	An offeror or offerors client should submit Past Performance Questionnaires for each project that is being referenced in the prime offerors proposal.
	39	Sample TAT 2
Section 3.3	Per Section 3.3, will contractors have access to source code as well as compiled binary files to ensure an accurate Software Data & Analysis assessment of the architecture?	No, the Robotic Exoskeleton PMO will not provide the source code and binary files. The Offeror will have access to the latest architecture documents and other relevant program files for the system. This will be suffice to create the Gap Analysis Report.
	40	Sample TAT 2
Section 3.3	Will contractors have physical access to the fielded exoskeleton hardware and any planned hardware updates for evaluation?	Yes
	41	Sample TAT 2
Section 3.4	Per Section 3.4, please define the timeframe allowed for the contractor to become familiar with HART’s functions within the robotic exoskeleton system.	The start of the contract to the time Task 4 Section 3.4 deliverables are due. Approximately 9 months.
	42	Sample TAT 2
Section 3.4	Can the Government provide additional details on the exoskeleton system architecture?	Not at this time. The TAT has all the information that is needed at this time.
	43	Sample TAT 2	While the response is based upon a generic system, are there any design components that can be shared? Please provide any further details in relation to the HART architecture.	To name a few design components- energy cell, weight/power distribution cell, situational awareness cell, communication cell, armor cell. This is just a few of the design components for exoskeleton system. The HART architecture is a command and control cell that will communicate with the various cells in the exoskeleton system.
	44	Sample TAT 2	The exoskeleton system can perform a variety of tasks. In relation to this response, is there an intended purpose? For example, is the intent to use it exclusively for operational warfighting?	The intent of the exoskeleton system is to protect the warfighter during combat.
	45	Attachment J-6 and Attachment J-9	Attachment J-6 indicates that 90% of work will be done at the government site, but the Sample TAT at Attachment J-9 Paragraph 9.2 states 95% of the work will be at the contractor’s facility. Which should be used for our proposal as this impacts pricing?	For Sample TAT 2 (Attachment J-9), the majority of the work (95%) will be performed at the contractor's facility. The Sample TAT 2 tab in the Cost/Price Model should reflect this accordingly and Offerors can add and subtract rows as necessary to comply with the RFP.
	46	Att. 8, Sample TAT, 9.2 Work Location	Per Sample TAT, P 40, 9.2 Work Location, it is stated “The majority of the work (90%) will be performed at USSTRATCOM government facilities. An estimate of this breaks down as follows: 80% - USCYBERCOM/CIIP, Fort Meade, MD; 10% USSTRATCOM, Offutt Air Force Base Omaha, NE. The remainder of work may be performed at the subordinate Government facilities: Army Cyber Command (ARCYBER)—Washington DC 5% Air Forces Cyber (AFCYBER)-- Lackland Air Force Base San Antonio, Texas; Fleet Cyber Command (FLTCYBERCOM) —Fort Meade, MD; and 5% Marine Forces Cyber Command (MARFORCYBER)--- Camp Pendleton, CA." Please clarify where the 10% of non-USSTRATCOM government facilities work will be performed.

We assume it would be:

5% Air Forces Cyber (AFCYBER)-- Lackland Air Force Base San Antonio, Texas; 5% Marine Forces Cyber Command (MARFORCYBER)--- Camp Pendleton, CA. However, there appears to be a missing semi-colon with reference to Lackland AFB. 10% of non-USSTRATCOM government facilities work may be performed at:

Army Cyber Command (ARCYBER) Washington DC Air Forces Cyber (AFCYBER)-- Lackland Air Force Base San Antonio, Texas Fleet Cyber Command (FLTCYBERCOM) —Fort Meade, MD Marine Forces Cyber Command (MARFORCYBER)--- Camp Pendleton, CA

47	L.2.2	Is it the Government's intent that Offerors submit two (2) CD-ROMs containing only the Past Performance volume with their Past Performance Volume submission on February 5, and then submit two (2) CD-ROMs, each containing all volumes (I-IV) with their submission on February 20?	That is correct
48	Section I	DFARS 252.227-7020 (Rights in Special Works) conflicts with DFARS 252.227-7013 (Rights in Technical Data – Noncommercial Items) and DFARS 252.227-7014 (Rights in Computer Software – Noncommercial Items) by granting the contractor and the government a different set of rights.	DFARS 252.227-7020 does not conflict with but compliments DFARS 252.227-7013 and DFARS 252.227-7014. The Government will include specific information at the TAT order level as necessary.
49	Section I, page 44	Would the Government consider revising the following FAR clause to a version applicable to a nonprofit Institutions and Small Businesses, as prescribed by the FAR? Change DFAR 252.227-7038, Patents Rights Ownership by the Contractor (Large Business) to FAR 52.227-11, Patent Rights Ownership by the Contractor. Rationale: Per the FAR (27.309(b)(1)), FAR 52.227-11, Patent Rights Ownership by the Contractor, is used in research and development contracts with Nonprofit Organizations and Small Businesses. Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) is a nonprofit educational institution.	The Government will incorporate this clause into contracts that are awarded to Small Businesses or nonprofit organizations.
50	Section I, page 41	Would the Government consider revising the following FAR clause to a version applicable to an educational institution and/or nonprofit organization, as prescribed by the FAR? - FAR 52.204-2, Security Requirements (Aug 1996), Alternate I (Apr 1984)	The Government will incorporate this clause into contracts that are awarded to Small Businesses or nonprofit organizations.
51	Section I, page 41	Would the Government consider revising the following FAR clause to a version applicable to an educational institution and/or nonprofit organization, as prescribed by the FAR? - FAR 52.215-2, Audit and Records – Negotiation (Oct 2010), Alternate II (Apr 1998)	The Government will incorporate this clause into contracts that are awarded to Small Businesses or nonprofit organizations.
52	Section I, page 41	Would the Government consider adding the following FAR clause as a version applicable to an educational institution and/or nonprofit organization, as prescribed by the FAR? - FAR 52.216-15, Predetermined Indirect Cost Rates (APR 1998)	The Government will incorporate this clause into contracts that are awarded to Small Businesses or nonprofit organizations.
53	Section I, page 43	Would the Government consider revising the following FAR clause to a version applicable to an educational institution and/or nonprofit organization, as prescribed by the FAR? - FAR 52.243-1, Changes – Fixed Price (Aug 1987), Alternate V	The Government will incorporate this clause into contracts that are awarded to Small Businesses or nonprofit organizations.
54	Section I, page 46	Would the Government consider revising the following FAR clause to a version applicable to an educational institution and/or nonprofit organization, as prescribed by the FAR? - FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment (Jun 2013), Alternate II (Aug 2012).	The Government will incorporate this clause into contracts that are awarded to Small Businesses or nonprofit organizations.
55	Section L1.2, page 94	The address says “Attn: Mr. Stanley Stearns, Proposal No. FA8075-14-R-0001” should this be FA8075-15-R-0001?	Yes It should read FA8075-15-R-0001.
56	Attachment L-4, page 116	The body of the first paragraph calls out solicitation number “FA8075-14-R-0001”, Are you accepting the consent letter with the previous cancelled solicitation number or do you want everyone to submit with FA8075-15-R-0001?	Yes It should read FA8075-15-R-0001.
57	Section H	Since the government is looking for the benefit of cross teaming as stated in Section H.13 of the solicitation (FA8075-15-R-0001), there are potentials where two prime contractors could submit the same past performance. Should this happen does the government expect the program sponsor to fill out two past performance questionnaires? If no, is there a specific way that the government would like that reported to allow the past performance information to be reflected correctly within both proposal evaluations?	An offeror or offerors client should submit Past Performance Questionnaires for each project that is being referenced in the prime offerors proposal.
58	RFP L5.4.4 Subcontracts	Please confirm that subcontractors accomplishing more than 10% of the total cost are required to submit the same number of Cost Volume copies as the Prime (Original Hard Copy + 2 CDs).	Yes.
59	RFP L5.4.5 Volume to DCAA	Are subcontractors, accomplishing more than 10% of the total cost, required to submit an additional Cost Volume copy to the cognizant DCAA office?	No.
60	RFP L2.2.4 Cross Reference Matrix	Please confirm that a Cross Reference Matrix is not required in all volumes.	Per RFP Section L2.2.4, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis. Therefore, a cross reference matrix is only necessary to help respective evaluators navigate through an offerors proposal and is not specifically required.
61	Attachment J-8, 9.2 Place of Performance	Please confirm all work for Sample TAT 1 is to be priced on Government site, in accordance with the percentages provided by Government site location .	All the performance of work will be at subordinate Government facilities.
62	Attachment J-8, 3.2.	Will Task 2 – STI Relevance Assessment and Gap Analysis be directly funded by the customer?	This question is not clear. The STI Relevance Assessment and Gap Analysis is funded by the customer as part of each TAT. Upon award of the TAT the Government will provide the TAT contractor a pre-award STI literature search. In conducting the STI Relevance Assessment and Gap Analysis, the contractor shall, for each search term, highlight noteworthy examples of how STI significantly contributed to the performance of that particular task. For each task, the contractor shall identify any perceived gaps in the knowledge base (e.g., the task required information on XYZ, but the literature search did not turn up STI on XYZ).
63	Attachment J-8, 3.3.3.	How often does are the periodic CMMI audits performed?	USCYBERCOM sponsored periodic CMMI audits are driven by USCYBERCOM and may be sporadic. Based on their expertise, current CMMI level, and knowledge of CMMI, Offerors should make an assumption on how often an audit would be likely and what the audit would entail.
64	Attachment J-8, 3.4.	Will any hardware/software/licensing purchases be required under this effort or will that be performed solely by the Government?	Yes, the CIIP is a newly formed oversight program comprised of representatives from each of the sub commands and the research, design, development, build, and testing of existing and new systems, networks, and software is a mission. It would be sensible for an offeror to assume that this mission will require hardware/software/licensing purchases.
65	Attachment J-8, 3.4.1.	Can the Govt. provide an estimate of how many best practices, plans, CONOPS, APBs, TCO’s, etc.) may need to be reviewed per year?	The CIIP is a newly formed program. In accordance with RFP paragraph L.3.2.1, offerors may suggest best practices and describe how their experience will be leveraged in developing a unique and tailored approach to meet each of the Sample TAT requirements. In such cases assumptions should be explicitly stated.
66	Attachment J-8, 3.4.2.2	What metrics will USCYBERCOM make available with respect to the IT architecture performance? Does these metrics exist or do they need to be captured?	Metrics will need to be captured. In accordance with RFP paragraph L.3.2.1, offerors may suggest proposed tools/enhancements and describe how their experience will be leveraged in developing a unique and tailored approach to meet each of the Sample TAT requirements. The Offeror shall propose a solution (technical approach, schedule that details the task level effort and deliverables, and management approach to include any business management tools and methods on how the tools will be used, use of appropriate skill sets, number of hours (personnel), etc. to fulfill the requirements described within each Sample TAT task. In such cases assumptions should be explicitly stated.
67	Attachment J-8, 3.4.6.5	How much of the infrastructure has update to date information and how much needs to be surveyed (e.g., estimated number of devices/nodes)?	The CIIP is a newly formed oversight program comprised of representatives from each of the sub commands, currently it is unknown how much infrastructure exists, will require update, or needs to be surveyed this will be determined through research and analysis.
68	Attachment J-8, 3.4.7	What is the current state of USCYBERCOM’s CM systems. Is there one centralized CM system or are there are number of decentralized CMs?	It is not currently known. In accordance with RFP paragraph L.3.2.1, offerors may make an assumption and describe how their experience will be leveraged in developing a unique and tailored approach to meet each of the Sample TAT requirements. In such cases assumptions should be explicitly stated.
69	Attachment J-8, 3.4.9	What systems does USCYBERCOM currently use for IT asset management?	It is not currently known. In accordance with RFP paragraph L.3.2.1, offerors may suggest use of an IT asset management system and describe how their experience will be leveraged in developing a unique and tailored approach to meet each of the Sample TAT requirements. In such cases assumptions should be explicitly stated.
70	Attachment J-8, 3.5.1.5	Is USCYBERCOM migrating from DIACAP to the Risk Management Framework?	No
71	L5.6 Line of Credit	Please confirm the Government will accept a copy of the Offerors audited financial statements as proof of sufficient financial resources and responsibility in lieu of a line of credit letter.	Per RFP Section L5.6 the Offeror shall include a line of credit or unsecured credit facility as acceptable evidence.
72	H.14.a	Is an insurance certificate required for the Sample Task?	No
73	L4.2.6	Please confirm that the Government does not want the table at Item K of the Information Sheet "Past Performance Relevance Evaluation Matrix for PWS Scope" at the end of each PPIS within the Past Performance Volume.	The matrix should be submitted as a separate section within Volume II. It will not count toward the page limitation.
74	L4.2.6	Please confirm that the reference to "Word table" in the statement "Excel file matrix shall be in the exact same format as the Word table..." refers to the table that is in Attachment L-1 Section K title CS TAT Past Performance Relevance Evaluation Matrix for PWS Scope"	That is correct
75	L4.2.7	Section L4.2.7 instructs offerors to have our government customers return the completed Questionnaire to csiactat@us.af.mil or to contact Mr. Stanley Sterns at 402-294-4711. The last page of Attachment L-2 Past/Present Performance Questionnaire requests that the government customer return the completed Questionnaire to Stanley Sterns and Jeff Study at csiactat@us.af.mil. Attachment L-3 Sample Past Performance Questionnaire, lists Stanley Sterns and John Lower at the POC's for the Questionnaire. Please clarify.	Government POC's for Past Performance submittals should be sent to csiactat@us.af.mil to the Attention of Mr. Stanley Stearns and Mr. Jeff Study.
76	Section C, Para 1.1	Reference Section 1, paragraph 1.1 Background: The RFP states that “The terms “task order” (TO) and “technical area task” (TAT) are used interchangeably throughout this Performance Work Statement (PWS).” Based on that interchangeable definition, can the government confirm that there will be no task orders taken down under a TAT, since they are one interchangeable?	At this time, the Government does not anticipate any requirements where there would be a sub task under a task order or TAT.
77	H.1, para b	Paragraph b Ordering Process for TATs: Would this be interchangeable to Ordering Process for Task Orders? And is a Task Order Proposal Request (TOPR) interchangeable to what would be a Technical Area Task Proposal Request (TATPR)?	Two part question. First part the answer is: Yes.

Second part the answer is: The RFP does not have an acronym TATPR. However, the Government believes that the two acronyms are interchangeable as stated.

78	H.1, para g	Paragraph g Task Order Request (TOPR): Would this be interchangeable with Technical Area Task Proposal Request (TATPR)?	The RFP does not have an acronym TATPR. However, the Government believes that the two acronyms are interchangeable.
79	H.1, para h	Paragraph h Submission of Task Order Proposal: Would this be interchangeable with Technical Area Task Proposal?	If the Government understands the question fully we believe the answer is Yes.
80	M 3.2	Past Performance Evaluation-- In order to be rated as very relevant, does a contract need to be funded at over $10M, or can the ceiling value alone be over $10M?	The Government will evaluate passed on the ceiling value.
81	1.5.2.2	Under Monthly Contract Cost Tracking Report, second sentence it states "...FTEs during the period (plus or minus) for small business in the Directed Energy and Advanced Materials award pools…" Does this apply to this contract or only to TATs which may involved advanced mateirals or directed energy? Please clarify.	This question does not pertain to this solicitation.
82	L4.2.4	Is an Organization Structure Change History required if there are not changes to the company?	Yes, the organizational structure change history is required.
83	L5.4.3	Sample TAT 2 (Small Business set-aside) has an estimated dollar value of $2.5M to$ 4M. However, earlier references state the small business pool will be $3.5M or less. Can the government please clarify this discrepancy?	The estimated value of Sample TAT 2, for proposal purposes, is between $2.5M and $4M. RFP Section H.1.b.4 describes the $3.5M in terms of an estimate. This does not mean the Government in extraordinary circumstances could not award an estimated Task Order of $3.5M at a higher dollar amount based on a best value award. Therefore a range was developed not to limit offerors business decisions on a R&D effort.
84	CDRL A003 and Attachment 4	Attachment 4, Operating Procedures for the IAC Weekly Report (WAR) states the information must be submitted by noon every Monday but the CDRL A003 states NLT noon Tuesday. Please clarify.	This question does not pertain to this solicitation.
85	Attachment 5 QASP	The QASP states it is implemented Performance Based Acquisition. Will Performance-Based Service Acquisition Award Fees be available?	No
86	Attachment 5 QASP 4.1.2	How often does the Multi-Function Team (MFT) meet? What level of Contractor Particpation is recommended?	That will be determined on a Task Order by Task Order basis.
87	Attachment 5 QASP Part 2	Is a sample Service Summary identical for all TATs? Is there a Service Summary required for each TAT as well as for the overall execution of the CS TAT contract?	No, each Task Order will have its own individual Service Summary.
88	General	Would the government consider raising the threshold of small-business set aside TATs from $3,500,000? Small businesses are plenty capable to perform larger-valued work.	No
89	General	If a Small Business contractor graduates from small business status during performance of the contractor, does that change the nature of performance and award?	No.
90	Sample TAT 2, Para 2.0	The last sentence of the section's first paragraph states: "This TAT requires the Contractor to define a system of systems approach to improve the security posture for, two systems". Can you please confirm that the systems are the exoskeleton and HART.	That is correct. The two systems are HART and the Robotic Exoskeleton System.
91	7	Single Scope Background Investigations are usually required for Top Secret clearances. The requirement is for all personnel performing services to hold at least a Secret DoD clearance. Can you please clarify whether a Secret DoD clearance with National Check Local Check (NACLC) is sufficient?	At this time cannot comment on type of investigation for the PMO for Exoskeleton Program. The Offeror, at time of award, must have a DoD secret clearance. This is the minimum requirement. The PMO will determine if a higher clearance is needed.
92	L4.2.9	This section uses the terms "major or critical" subcontractor/teaming partner/joint venture partner. Would the Government define the terms "major" and "critical"?	The Government defines "major" and "critical" as any subcontractor/teaming partner/joint venture partner that will perform more than 10% of the work on a prospective task order. As a reminder, consent letter should be submitted, however, if an offeror is unable to receive consent from a potential teaming partner, past performance information for said teaming partner will not be shared with the prime offeror.
93	L4.2.6	This section states that the table at Item K of the PP revlevance evaluation matrix for PWS scope "shall be submitted not as a Word file…but rather as one separate Excel sheet per offeror." Is it the Government's intent for offerors to remove the matrix from the L-1 past performance information sheet Word file?	Please see RFP Section L2.2.4. The matrix should be submitted as a separate section within Volume II. It will not count toward the page limitation.
94	J-8, Sample TAT 1 F&O	Can the Government describe how the Cyber Innovation Initiative Program interfaces with existing programs such as NMCI?	The CIIP is a brand new program and it is not currently known how it will interface with existing programs. In accordance with RFP paragraph L.3.2.1, offerors may describe how their experience will be leveraged in developing a unique and tailored approach to meet each of the Sample TAT requirements. In such cases assumptions should be explicitly stated.
95	J-8, Sample TAT 1 F&O	Can the Government identify key Cyber Innovation Initiative Program interfaces?	No
96	J-8, Sample TAT 1 F&O, 3.4.3.4	This section refers to existing business processes. Can the Government identify these business processes? Do they refer to all IT/IM-related business processes of the sponsor?	No. The CIIP is a brand new program. In accordance with RFP paragraph L.3.2.1, offerors may suggest best practices and describe how their experience will be leveraged in developing a unique and tailored approach to meet each of the Sample TAT requirements. In such cases assumptions should be explicitly stated.
97	J-8, Sample TAT 1 F&O, 3.4.4	This section states that the contractor “shall research, analyze, develop, and evaluate current cyber systems and software.” How can the contractor “develop” already current (existing) systems and software? Does this mean enhance or improve current systems?	The CIIP is a newly formed oversight program comprised of representatives from each of the sub commands, currently those cyber systems and software may not interface. There could be some development required in order to enhance and improve current systems and collaboration between them.
98	J-8, Sample TAT 1 F&O, 3.4.5.5	Can the Government identify which legacy information systems are included?	No. In accordance with RFP paragraph L.3.2.1, offerors may make an assumption and describe how their experience will be leveraged in developing a unique and tailored approach to meet each of the Sample TAT requirements. In such cases assumptions should be explicitly stated.
99	J-8, Sample TAT 1 F&O, 3.4.6.2	Is the Government able to provide at least a partial list of the “validated and Government approved algorithms” referred to in this section?	No. In accordance with RFP paragraph L.3.2.1, offerors may make an assumption and describe how their experience will be leveraged in developing a unique and tailored approach to meet each of the Sample TAT requirements. In such cases assumptions should be explicitly stated.
100	J-8, Sample TAT 1 F&O, 3.5.1.3	This section states the contractor shall “...make recommendations on future direction for the program.” Does "the program" refer to IAVM (see 3.5.1.1)?	Yes, "the program" refers to the IA program
101	L3.3.1	Section required "The Prime Offeror shall provide the letter that granted a cleared facility from the Defense Security Service (DSS)." Please confirm that the letter may be provided as an attachment and is not counted against page limits.	That is correct. Per L2.2.1, certifications will not be counted in the page limits.
102	L4.2.1, L4.2.6 and L4.2.6	The instruction for the Table of Contents in the Past Performance Volume (L4.2.1) does not specify a separate section for the Past the Past Performance Relevance Matrix Exel file. Does the government prefer that the Past Performance Relevance Matrix Exel file be included 1) in the front of the Past Performance Informtion Sheets section; 2) in the back of the Past Performance Informtion Sheets section; or 3) in a separate section?	The Government does not have a preference as long as it is submitted in Volume II of Offerors proposal.
103	L 1.2, Page 93	Proposal Due Date and Submission of Proposals. Government states that, "Proposal Volume II Past Performance shall be received at the place specified below no later than 4:00 PM Central Time 30 days after Request for Proposal (RFP) release date identified in Block 5 of the SF33. Question- Please confirm Past Performance Volume is due 4:00PM Central Time 5 Feb 2015. given that the RFP was released on 6 Jan 2015.	That is correct
104	M3.2	According to Section M3.2 Past Performance (Factor 2) - Volume II: "For both competition pools the Government is seeking past performance across all four (4) focus areas that make up the CS TAT requirement. . . For the Partial SB set-aside competition pool Offeror's will not receive a past performance confidence assessment rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial” if they do not have coverage in at least three (3) of the four (4) focus areas. The Government shall evaluate past performance through an analysis of the Offeror’s recent and relevant contract performance covering all focus areas in Factor 1 (Software Data & Analysis, Cyber Security (CS), Modeling and Simulation (M&S), Knowledge Management and Information Sharing). Question: Request the Government clarify for the Partial SB set-aside competition pool if an Offeror must demonstrate past performance coverage of at least 3 of the four focus areas on each single past performance citation or if it must demonstrate coverage of at least 3 of the four focus areas collectively on the five (5) past performance submissions. In other words, can Offeror provide one past performance that covers two focus areas: (1) Software Data & Analysis and (2) Cyber Security. Then provide a second past performance that covers two other focus areas: (1) Modeling and Simulations and (2) Knowledge Management and Information Sharing. Or must Offeror provide each single past performance citation that covers 3 of the four focus areas?	Yes that could be the case. Offerors should submit past performance that collectively covers the appropriate focus areas requirements for the pool they are competing in.

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 Nov 14, 2017.