CSIAC_BCO_RFP_Vendor_Questions_DTIC_Response_23_Jan_17.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Cyber Security and Information Systems Information Analysis Center (CSIAC) Basic Center Operations (BCO) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8075-16-R-0002
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| CSAIC_BCO_RFP_Amendment_3_30Jan17.docx | DOCX document | |
| CSAIC_BCO_RFP_Amendment_2_23Jan17.docx | DOCX document | |
| CSAIC_BCO_RFP_Amendment_1_19Jan17.docx | DOCX document | |
| CSIAC_BCO_RFP_Vendor_Questions_DTIC_Response_19_Jan_17.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| CSIAC_BCO_RFP.docx | DOCX document |
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
| CSIAC BCO RFP Q&A as of 23 January 2017 | |||
| # | Solicitation Section | Question/Comment | Response |
| 1 | Volume III CLIN 0001 | Volume III pricing of CLIN 0001 shall align with the offeror’s Phase-In Transition Plan approach. How will the non-incumbent offerers transition costs be fairly rated against the incumbent's Phase In transition plan costs? | As stated at L.4.3.1, all offerors, even if one is the incumbent contractor and has no need to formally "transition", must propose a price to perform services for the first 90 days after contract award under the Phase-In/Transition CLIN 0001. Proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and cost realism. Therefore, the incumbent will not have an unfair advantage over non-incumbents, since all offerors will be evaluated on the reasonableness and cost realism of their price to perform services during the initial 90 day period. |
| 2 | Section C, PWS 1.8.2; Section L 4.4.4; Section M M3.2.3.2.5; 5352.215-9000 | 5352.215-9000 states "The offeror must possess, or acquire prior to award of a contract, a facility clearance equal to the highest classification stated on the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) attached to this solicitation." PWS Section 1.8.2 that states "The prime contractor shall possess a Top Secret Facility Clearance with a facility cleared to store classified (top secret) information on day one of performance." L4.4.4 state "The Offeror shall provide the physical address and associated cage code for the place of performance of the proposed facility. The Government will validate at time of proposal that the Offeror possesses a Facility Clearance and has a cleared facility authorized to store classified materials at the top secret level. " Section M3.2.3.2.5 states "Execute BCO requirements at a Top Secret security clearance level. The Government will validate at time of proposal via the Defense Security Service that the Offeror possesses a Top Secret Facility Clearance and has a cleared facility authorized to store classified materials at the Top Secret level. " Since the PWS 1.8.2; L 4.4.4, M 3.2.3.2.5 & 5352.215-9000 all conflict for the point in time when the Top Secret Facility Clearance and authorization to store Top Secret level material is necessary. We respectfully ask the government to consider deconflicting the requisite sections to state at time of award or by day one of contract performance. | Section C, PWS 1.8.2, Paragraph 2, will be revised in Amendment 1 to resolve the issue. |
| 3 | Section L 5.4; CLIN 0003, Page 107 | Section L5.4, states “The Offeror shall not include any amount(s) and/or cost detail except for the average rate proposed for ETIs only, that is automatically calculated in the CSIAC BCO Cost/Price Model, for each respective year/period for this CLIN in their proposal.” However CLIN 0003 includes Core Analysis Tasks (CATs) as well as, Extended Technical Inquiries (ETI) purchased by a CSIAC Task Order. Is the average rate really only for the ETIs or will it apply to the CATs too? | The average rate is only for ETIs and will not apply to CATs. |
| 4 | Attachment J-10 CSIAC BCO Cost Price Model Jan 17 | In the cost/price file, on the loading factor tab, cell H16 is not calculating correctly. | The H16 cell has been revised to calculate correctly. Formulas for cells G15 and G16 have also been added to the same tab for calculation purposes. Attachment 10 is revised and included in Amendment 1. |
| 5 | PWS 1.4.1.4, PWS 1.4.1.7 | PWS 1.4.1.4 (Storage) states "All CSIAC holdings" are unclassified, yet PWS 1.4.1.7 (maintaining libraries) refers to there being classified materials. Please clarify the extent of requirements to receive, store, dispose of classified and/or unclassified materials. | Historically, CSIAC's holdings have not included classified materials. That could change in the future. PWS paragraphs 1.4.1.7 and 1.4.1.8 state the contractor's STI library collection (aka materials not suitable for upload into DTIC Onlline) could potentially include classified materials. Additionally, the contractor may be required to receive, store and dispose of classified STI pursuant to performing other BCO tasks such as the quality reviews for STI generated by TAT contractors (reference PWS paragraph 1.4.1.6). |
| 6 | Section C, PWS 1.4.1.4 | Is the requirement for the contractor to store materials referenced in PWS 1.4.1.4 in a contractor facility? | Yes. |
| 7 | Section C, PWS 1.4.1.6 | PWS 1.4.1.6 (Scanning and Uploading) states that once documents are digitized "..the contractor is authorized to destroy any hard copy…documents". Does this pertain to classified documents as well as unclassified documents? If classified documents are included, does the Government provide accredited destruction equipment (e.g., shredder), or will the contractor be expected to transfer classified holdings to the Government or to acquire and use accredited destruction equipment at the contractor facility? | Yes this pertains to classified materials as well. Classified hard copy materials that have been digitized and forwarded to the Government for uploading shall be destroyed by the contractor, at its own facility using its own equipment, in accordance with the NISPOM. The Government will not furnish accredited destruction equipment nor will it destroy the materials for the contractor. |
| 8 | PWS 1.6.2.1, PWS 1.13.1 | PWS 1.6.2.1 (ETI Rate) refers to ETIs and separate pricing (additional funds provided by customers for work beyond the 4 free hours) as if this work is performed by persons beyond the 13.5 FTEs referred to in PWS 1.13.1 (Personnel Qualifications). PWS 1.13.1 states 13.5 FTEs are "required to perform the CSIAC BCO function excluding CATS". Should PWS 1.13.1 state that CATS and ETIs are excluded from the 13.5 FTEs? | Yes, this will be clarified in Amendment 1. |
| 9 | Section C, PWS 1.4.2.6 | Does the Government own the current CSIAC web URL "CSIAC.ORG" and, if so, will that be the URL used for this next IDIQ? | Note - this answer is corrected from the original 19 Jan. 2017 posting to read: "No. The government does NOT own the current CSIAC website. The URL was established by the current contractor." |
| 10 | Section C, PWS 1.4.2.6 | Will the contents of the current CSIAC.ORG website be provided to the awardee and, if so, will that be during the transition period? | Yes website materials developed at government expense under this contract will be available for transfer during the transition. |
| 11 | Section L.6.8, page 110. | Section L.6.8 refers to the VETS-100 form. The VETS-100 form was replaced by the VETS-4212 form in 2014. | Section L6.8 will be revised to reflect the VETS-4212 report in Amendment 1. |
| 12 | Section C, PWS 1.2, PWS 1.4.1.4; PWS 1.8.2,: Section L4.4.4; Section M3.2.3.2.5, and 5352.215-9000 | 1.4.1.4 Storage states, "The contractor shall store paper, microfiche, microfilm, and electronic media under conditions necessary and sufficient to ensure that information contained in the media shall remain accessible to the Government during the period of performance of this contract. All CSIAC holdings within the repository are unclassified ..." However, sections PWS 1.8.2, L 4.4.4, M3.2.3.2.5, and 5352.215-9000 all have requirements for Top Secret storage. Is there current Top Secret data that needs to be stored? What is the volume of Top Secret material that needs to be stored? What is the volume currently in existence at the incumbent facility that needs to be moved and stored at the awardee facility? | PWS paragraph 1.4.1 describes long-term storage requirements for STI that is in the contractor's repository (also referred to as a library or holdings). Currently, none of the materials in the CSIAC long term holdings are classified, however this could change in the future if the CSIAC contractor elects to add classified materials to its repository. The contractor is required to receive and temporarily store classified materials up to and including Top Secret which it may receive or generate in the course of performing tasks such as CATs, ETIs, or when completing a quality review of STI generated by the TAT contractors. The volume of such classified materials is not known and varies over time since it is stored only for relatively brief periods, but is believed to be minimal and capable of being stored within a typical GSA-approved classified storage container. Whether any such material will need to transition to a follow-on contractor will be identified during the transition period and reflected in the transition plan and ensuing transition task order. |
| 13 | Section L1.2; Section L6.1 | L1.2 requires proposal to be valid for at least 320 days past the due date; at L6.1, it's 240. | Section L1.2 for 320 days is correct. Section L6.1 has been revised in Amendment 1 to 320 days. |
| 14 | Attachment J-10 | J-10 provides cells for both contractor site and Government site rates but the CSIAC is to be operated at a contractor site. Please explain. | The Government site rates are also related to other off-site locations other than the contractor site if something less than 100% of performance will occur at the Prime contractor site. |
| 15 | Consider pulling travel and materials/equipment/ODCs from the proposal evaluation and request/evaluate only the proposed M&H and G&A percentages for these costs. | The requirement for offerors to estimate appropriate travel and ODCs costs remains unchanged. The amounts of travel and ODC costs to be incurred will be driven by each offeror's unique technical approach to performing the contract. | |
| 16 | Section L5.4, Page 107 | “The Offeror shall not include any amount(s) and/or cost detail except for the average rate proposed for ETIs only, etc.” CLIN 0003 is for Core Analysis Tasks/Extended Technical Inquiries Purchased by a CSIAC Task Order. Is the average rate really only for the ETIs or will it apply to the CATs too? | Duplicate of #3. |
| 17 | In the cost/price file, on the loading factor tab, cell H16 is not calculating correctly. | Duplicate of #4. | |
| 18 | Typically the Past Performance requirement for recency is based upon the date of proposal submission; will the Government consider modifying the requirement to state that the contract/order where performance began within six (6) months prior to the submission date of this proposal? | The requirement for recency remains unchanged. Any contract/order where performance began within six (6) months prior to release of the RFP is considered too recent to establish any credible past performance record that can be effectively evaluated. | |
| 19 | Can you please provide a more detailed breakdown of the historical workload data? For example what is the average time spent on a web inquiry? Average time spent on each technical inquiry? What is the average number of days per training event? How many people travel to events on average and how many days per event? | DTIC does not collect this type of data; workload patterns are driven in large part by a contractor's unique technical approach to performing the contract, thus such data would be of minimal value any way, as there is no one optimal performance approach. | |
| 20 | Will the Government provide a list of records that will be transitioned to the new CSIAC contractor? For planning purposes, bidders should have an understanding of what records will be transitioned, the classification of those records, and media type. PWS Section 1.4.1.8 states, "The details as to whether any or all of these records may be transferred to the new CSIAC contractor will be determined by the incumbent CSIAC and the successor CSIAC contractor during the transition-in period." | Records that will be transitioned cannot be predicted at this time. Details on the holdings of the incumbent CSIAC contractor, as of September, 2016, are provided at PWS paragraphs 1.4.1.4. As stated, none of these holdings are classified. Offerors should assume that the quantity and type of records to be transitioned are similar to those listed at 1.4.1.1. The approximate physical space requirements of these holdings is stated at PWS paragraph 1.4.1.8. | |
| 21 | We respectfully ask that section L4.4.4 and Section M3.2.3.2.5 are updated to reflect PWS Section 1.8.2 that states "…with a facility cleared to store classified (top secret) information on day one of performance." | Duplicate of #2. | |
| 22 | L7.0, Page 110 | In L7.0 the government asks the offeror to provide one average, fully burdened labor rate to be applied for all Extended Technical Inquiries (ETIs). Given the unknown nature of ETIs (level of knowledge required for each will vary) we believe it would be more advantageous to the government and contractor to require a burdened labor rate for each labor level of Junior SME, Mid-Level SME, and Senior SME that can be applied based on the level of expertise required by each individual ETI. Will the government consider modifying L7.0 to allow the offeror to include a burdened rate for Junior SME, Mid-Level SME and Senior SME burdened labor rates which reflect various experience levels? | No. Utilizing three different labor categories would result in additional time needed to evaluate, negotiate and award ETI orders, such that it would not be feasible to achieve the objective for ETI processing to be streamlined and quick. Any disadvantages associated with performing ETIs within one fixed billing rate are minimal due to the low dollar value and short duration of ETIs, and outweigh the advantages of having more granularity in the orders' cost structures. |
| 23 | Subfactor 1 Operations Approach M3.2.3.1.3, Page 127 | In M.3.2.3.1.3 the government indicates that offerors will be evaluated based on their ability to “Respond to technical inquiries and CATs utilizing SMEs when needed.” While we agree that Technical Inquiries are more reactive on the part of the IAC operator and require a response, we feel strongly that CATs cannot be looked at in the same manner. Responding to a CAT RFQ is merely the culmination of a capture process that includes many elements not required to respond to a TI. Given the intricacies of developing and responding to CATs, will the government consider adding an instruction (in section L) and evaluation criteria (in section M) that focuses more specifically on “Development of CATs?” | No. Note that paragraph L.4.3.2 is being amended to add "and CATs" after "technical inquiries" to align with M.3.2.3.1.3. |
| 24 | Section C PWS, 1.4.1.4; 1.4.1.8 |
Attachment J-11
| As stated in the RFP, the square footage of the library is 1600 and the server room is 20 square feet. Can the Government clarify and provide more information on what is to be transferred from the CSIAC library during the transition phase? The table in Section 1.4.1.4 (page 15) of the RFP identifies books, video tapes, compact disks, hardcopy technical reports, hardcopy technical journals. Attachment J, the listing non-GP materials, does not include hardcopy technical reports and journals. Are the technical reports and journals to be transferred as well? If so, can the Government provide a rough estimate of the volume and weight of what needs to be transferred? | See answer to Question #20. As they are listed in the PWS table at 1.4.1.4, there is a possibility that hardcopy technical reports and journals will be transferred. There are no details available on the volume and weight of this specific subcategory of materials; they are included in the total estimated at 1.4.1.8. The "non-GP materials" list in Section J is intended to show the most relevant or useful materials in the contractor's custody but does not list every single data item in its STI holdings. | |||
| 25 | Section L Attachment L-1, Pages 111-112 | Section I of the Past Performance Information Sheet states “Describe the nature or portion of the work on the proposed effort to be performed by the business entity being reported here. Also, estimate the percentage of the total proposed effort to be performed by the entity and whether this entity will be performing as the prime, subcontractor, teaming partner, or corporate division related to the prime (define relationship). Please provide clarity if section I means for the past performance citation being discussed or for only the CSIAC BCO effort. | This refers to the CSIAC BCO effort. | |
| 26 | Section L Attachment L-1, Pages 111-112 | |||
| On Attachment L1 Section L, Past Performance Information Sheet, the government states in E. of the Past Performance Sheet PCO/ Role (i.e. PM, COR, CO, ACO) and in Section F the government is asking for the same information. Suggest deleting that requirement in Section E and combining that data into section F. for the first column 1. to be PM/Site Manager/COR/ or Tech POC; second column 2. Contracting Officer; and third column 3. ACO. | Information in E of the Past Performance Information Sheet will be revised in Amendment 2. Information will be provided only in F. | |||
| 27 | Section C PWS, Section 1.2, Page 12 | If the contract is not awarded to the incumbent contractor, will the domain name “csiac.org” be transitioned to successor contractor? | See answer to Question #9. Note the original answer to Question #9 published in FBO on 19 January contained an error (see correction above). The Government does not own the CSIAC URL. | |
| 28 | Attachment J-10 Cost-Model, Instructions | Under Directions to PRIME: Primes should delete TABs SUB Labor Prime Fills in, Prime ODC and Grand Total before sending this Cost Model to their Subcontractors. However, under Directions to SUBS it states: Subcontractors must submit to ESG/PKS DTIC IAC Contracting the following TABs Loading Factors, Loaded Rates, Labor Hrs & Cost, Sub ODC (if any), Benefit Summary and Grand Total. (Only if Subs have a Basis of Estimate of 10%; or more of the Prime contractors total proposed costs). | ||
| Should the Subs receive the Grand Total tab? Also, will deletion of tabs corrupt any of the formulas or links within the file? | No. Subs will not receive the Grand Total TAB. Instructions on Directions TAB will be revised in Amendment 2. Deletion of TABs will not effect the remaining TABs. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .