Compiled Q and A_As of 8Jul11.xls

XLS spreadsheet 82 KB Posted Jul 8, 2011

Attached to: Cyber Security and Information Systems Information Analysis Center(CSIAC) Basic Center Operations Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: FA8075-R-11-0002
Issued by: Department of the Air Force Air Combat Command

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Cyber Security and Information Systems Information Analysis Center(CSIAC) Basic Center Operations, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
Compiled Q and A as of 04 Aug 2011.xls	XLS spreadsheet	Aug 4, 2011
Compiled Q and A as of 29 Jul 2011.xls	XLS spreadsheet	Jul 29, 2011
Compiled Q and A as of 28 Jul 2011.xls	XLS spreadsheet	Jul 28, 2011
Amendment_1 to CSIAC_BCO_RFP..doc	DOC document	Jul 28, 2011
Compiled Q and A as of 20 Jul 2011..xls	XLS spreadsheet	Jul 20, 2011
CSIAC_BCO_RFP.doc	DOC document	Jun 30, 2011
Section J CSIAC BCO Attachments.zip	ZIP file	Jun 13, 2011
CSIAC BCO Draft RFP 6.06.11.doc	DOC document	Jun 6, 2011
CSIAC BCO Draft RFP.doc	DOC document	Jun 2, 2011

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

	CSIAC Draft RFP Q&A As of 8 July 2011
	Question/Comment	Response
	(Para L1.10 Budget Profile) The RFP indicates that the three consolidated IACs (IATAC, DACS and MSIAC) have historically used a total of 14 FTEs in the operation of the centers. Does the Government have an expectation of the LOE that the new technology area of Knowledge Management/Information Sharing should add to this LOE for CSIAC? Or, can the Government be more specific in terms of the expected budget for the entire CSIAC BCO operations?	The wording of this paragraph will be revised in the final RFP to clarify what the 14 FTE represents. It represents only the Government's estimate of staffing requirements for CSIAC. This estimate was derived through an integrated analysis of historical data, current data and future projections.
	Ref: Clause H15 b.(2) - Will the incumbent DACS, MSIAC, and IATAC contractors provide a matrix that will as stated in the draft RFP “ensure the requisite number of personnel and skill mix are available to satisfy the transition requirements of the DACS, MSIAC, and IATAC PWS in a quality manner”. It would be efficient and effective to have this available now.	Section b. of this clause refers to phase-out activities that will occur at the end of the CSIAC contract when the awardee for this contract phases out work to the next contractor. The final RFP was corrected to remove references to DACS, IATAC and MSIAC in the phase-out section and instead reference the CSIAC contractor.
	Will the incumbents supply a skills and resource matrix of the teams that they have in place today? Will it be cross referenced with the tasks that they perform? Will the matrix for the future be provided as stated in the draft RFP?	Para. L.1.10 provides the Government's estimate of the FTE requirements for CSIAC but offerors shall propose their own staffing approach.
	How many FTEs run the legacy IACS currently?	The Government has provided its estimate of FTE requirements for CSIAC in the RFP, which takes into account historical and current staffing of the legacy contracts, as well as future projections.
	Regarding Section L5.4, the DACS RFP FA4600‐09‐R‐004 dated 01 June 2009 had a CAT ceiling specified as $30M. The CSIAC draft RFP has specified a ceiling of $15M vs. $30M, which appears to be totally inadequate to cover CATs for all three technical areas. These areas are growing in importance. The BCO contractor can provide new STI based on the smaller CAT studies critical to support future SNIM work. Without an expanded limit for the full five years of the contract, it is likely that the BCO contractor will run out of CATS funding and be hampered in providing the expected level of service to DTIC, DoD, and the SNIM contractors. We recommend the ceiling be raised to at least $50M over the five years.	The CATs estimate of $15M in the RFP is the Government's best estimate of what will be required. All available data has been taken into account when formulating this estimate.
	(Para L5.4 Core Analysis Tasks CLINS 0003-0006) The funding for the CATs has been corrected to $15M for all 5 years combined. If the consolidated CSIAC is considered to address the technologies of three existing IACs plus the added technology of Knowledge Management/ Information Sharing, the $15M represents only $750K ($15M/5/4) per technology per year. Is this a deliberate de-emphasis of CATs since the October IAC Industry Day and since the first IAC BCO competition for the Data and Analysis Center for Software (DACS) when the ceiling was $5M per year?	No. See response to previous question.
	(Para M3.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors) The Section M award criteria seems to elevate "Cost" to being the most important evaluation factor while past IAC procurements have usually placed greater emphasis on "Mission Capability." Is this the Government's intent?	Source selection evaluation criteria clearly states that Mission Capability and Past Performance, when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. The FAR requires that cost be a "significant" factor in all source selections, therefore it will be a significant factor on CSIAC.
	(Para L2.0 Proposal Instructions) The instructions limit the "Mission Capability" Volume to 45 pages; are staff biographies included in this page count?	Page counts include anything the contractor submits in this volume unless otherwise stated in the RFP.
	Please verify that the “Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee, and Total Est. Cost + Fixed Fee” for CLIN 0001 is the roll‐up of those items for CLINs 0001AA, 0001AB, and 0001AC. If not, please clarify. Please also clarify the same question for CLIN 0002 and 0008, OPTION.	CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0008 are the rollup of the subCLIN costs.
	Re: Section B, many contracts have the final six‐month extension costs as escalation factors instead of being priced out. Will this be considered for this acquisition?	No. CLIN 0008 and its subCLINs need to be priced out.
	Re: PWS 1.4.1.3: Mention is made of the CSIAC executive steering committee. How many members are on this committee? Who are the members of this committee, and how do they interact with the CSIAC BCO?	The CSIAC Executive Steering Committee is still being developed and exact membership has not yet been ascertained. The CSIAC DTIC Program Manager and the CSIAC COR will be members of the committee. The Executive Steering Committee will serve as a resource to the BCO and provide guidance/direction to the contractor.
	Re: PWS 1.4.1.3: what responsibility does the BCO contractor have for identifying and selecting members of the steering committee?	The BCO contractor may propose members but the final makeup of the committee participants will be determined by the Government IAC PMO.
	Re: PWS 1.4.1.3: what are the terms of reference for the CSIAC steering committee, and how frequently does the committee meet?	It will likely meet quarterly but these details, including terms, have not yet been finalized.
	Re: PWS 1.4.1.4, the BCO core current holdings (1.4.1.4) define the current status, but yearly trends are difficult to determine, even with the information in Section 5.2, “Historical Workload Estimate.” What increase in holdings can be anticipated over the life of the contract? We request that at least three years of statistics be provided so we can determine the trends of new STI added.	The contractor's responsibility under this contract will be to build the STI holdings in accordance with contract requirements and the contractor's approved strategy. The contractor's approach will determine future increases, which will not necessarily be consistent with past trends.
	For DACS and MSIAC, the new STI produced from TATS is very low. What kind of trend is anticipated over the course of the contract?	STI produced tends to lag months to years behind the trend for TAT initiation, as the STI is usually produced later during the TAT period of performance (up to 3 years). IATAC has consistently had the largest number of TATs, MSIAC has added many new TATs that produce STI and the legacy DACS contract (prior to SNIM award) did not add any new TATs after the contract expired in 2007. As SNIM ramps up and existing legacy TATs expire more STI will gradually be produced for the CSIAC BCO.
	Will more detailed descriptions/ information be provided to describe the historical work load and the BCO Core holdings	No, all additional available information is provided within the RFP or through these responses to questions.
	Re: PWS 1.4.1., what percentage of the material is foreign generated? What percentage is non‐English? If non‐ English, are there full translations available, or just titles and abstracts?	All holdings are in English or have been translated into English. This information has been added into the RFP.
	Regarding PWS section 1.4.3.2, what is the relationship of the date for developing the criteria for establishment of a database of SMEs (within 30 days of award) and the beginning of transition, which may be several months in the future (i.e., DACS)? How will existing lists of SMEs from IATAC, DACS, and MSIAC be made available? Will they be provided as of the award date or as part of the transition information?	Existing lists of SMEs will be provided for IATAC and MSIAC during the transition period. For DACS, transition will occur later. The incumbent DACS contractor will submit a phase out plan for Government approval prior to the end of that contract that will include transitioning the DACS SMEs list. The incumbent contractor and CSIAC contractor will be provided a period to transition DACs to CSIAC prior to the end of DACS. The final CSIAC RFP was clarified to address that the transition of DACS to CSIAC will occur at a later date and not during the initial 90 day transition period.
	Regarding PWS section 1.4.3.3, what is the relationship of the date for designing, developing, etc. the ISS (within 60 days of award) and the beginning of transition? Will there be a gap before the start of transition, or will the two periods substantially overlap? When will the characteristics of the existing IATAC, DACS, and MSIAC ISSs be provided so that work may begin? Will any of the ISSs or parts of the ISSs be Government‐furnished material? If so, how much of the functionality will be provided?	The two periods will overlap. Development of the ISS will occur during the transition period. There is not a current CSIAC ISS, but characteristics of other current ISS's may be provided during the transition period. It is not anticipated that the ISS will be Government-furnished.
	Re: PWS 1.4.3.4, please provide the current contents of the CSIAC Tool Library, to include size, number of items, and types of items included. Please provide the database schema for this library.	Each IAC has developed its own proprietary information system for storing, finding and analyzing data. The DTIC IAC PMO does not collect detailed information about these systems.
	Regarding PWS section 1.4.3.4, what are the current contents of the INFOSEC Library, including size,number of items, and types of items included? Please provide the database schema for this library.	Each IAC has developed its own proprietary information system for storing, finding and analyzing data. The DTIC IAC PMO does not collect detailed information about these systems.
	Regarding PWS section 1.4.3.4, please specify the current contents of the Vendor Product Information Library, including size, number of items, and types of items included. Please provide the database schema for this library.	Each IAC has developed its own proprietary information system for storing, finding and analyzing data. The DTIC IAC PMO does not collect detailed information about these systems.
	Regarding section 1.4.3.4, please specify the current contents of the Product Vulnerability Information Library, including size, number of items, types of items included. Please provide the database schema for this library.	Each IAC has developed its own proprietary information system for storing, finding and analyzing data. The DTIC IAC PMO does not collect detailed information about these systems.
	Re: PWS 1.4.4, please specify how recently the CSIAC listserv has been reviewed for currency and accuracy.	There is no existing CSIAC listserv but legacy contractors' listservs are reviewed regularly and maintained as current.
	Re: PWS para. 1.4.4, is it apparent which antecedent IAC the names came from so sub‐list of communities of interest can be created?	The legacy contractors' list servs will be provided to the CSIAC contractor during the transition period. If an offeror would like the name of the legacy contractor to be identified on each list, they are free to propose that approach and request in their transition plan.
	Re: PWS 1.4.4., how many models are in the model repository? Are any classified information? If so, what percentage?	The DoD MSIS (MSIAC database) does not physically handle models, MSIS handles metadata describing models. There are 355 models currently listed in the MSIS. MSIS is an unclassified resource repository, however there are 12 “unclassified” metadata descriptions that mention other classified databases and capabilities. PWS 1.4.4.3 and CDRL A005 were edited in the final RFP to clarify that the contractor does not maintain/store models, only model metadata.
	Re: PWS para. 1.4.1.4, what software do the current IAC contractors use for the media catalog of items? There is nothing listed in the GFE attachments.	Each IAC has its own proprietary information systems/applications for storing, finding and analyzing data and accomplishing other requirements of the BCO. The DTIC IAC PMO does not collect detailed information about these systems/applications. The CSIAC contractor will be responsible for determining what type of technology is needed to perform the contract and developing or procuring those systems/applications, and is not required to use the software used by the current contractors. All GFP is provided as stated in the RFP.
	Re: PWS para. 1.2, Knowledge Management & Information Sharing, are there any social networking related software applications currently in development or in production? If there are, please name them and provide a description.	See previous response.
	Will a list of the software and versions as well as licensing transferred from the incumbent to the award contractor? Will this list be available prior to the contract being awarded? This would be useful to begin planning for possible license consolidation and server consolidation / virtualization?	See previous response.
	Is content management software already in use for cataloging the materials? If yes, then please supply the details.	See previous response.
	Re: PWS para. 1.2, Software Data & Analysis, what are the names of the software which is currently being utilized, its version number, the IACS where it is installed, and the license terms to include owner, and number of users, whether named individual, server based, or CPU based licensing, and the duration, or expiration of the license.	See previous response.
	Re: PWS para. 1.4.4.3, is there a list of models, software, and databases that currently exist within the DACS, IATAC, and MSIAC that would need to be maintained and disseminated? Please define maintained?	Maintenance of databases shall be in accordance with normal industry standards.
	Re: PWS 1.4.4., given the widespread use of models in DoD, how are models selected to be added to the repository? Over the last five years, how many models have been added each year?	Metadata can only be entered by subscribed users to the DOD MSIS who qualified by the user registration process. MSIS does not select model metadata, it is submitted by registered users and reviewed by the MSIS registrar and current MSIAC M&S subject matter experts. Last 5 years metadata models are: 2006: 9 2007: 11 2008: 12 2009: 6 = TOTALS: 38 registered in the last five years
	Re: PWS 1.4.4., models are written to execute on one or several classes of machines, ranging from laptops to supercomputers. What level of computer support is required to maintain models designed for example use on supercomputers or large arrays of computers? What level of support is required for models that run on other kinds of computers?	MSIS does not maintain models, only the metadata, therefore no computer support is required to maintain models.
	Re: PWS para. 1.4.4, this section specifies that the CSIAC BCO operator maintain “a working knowledge of each model’s and software’s strength, weaknesses, and level of detail.” Is this information provided to the CSIAC BCO operator by the model or software provider, or must the CSIAC BCO contractor maintain a model testing laboratory and develop this information?	The MSIAC contractor has general awareness of the models described in MSIS; if/when an inquiry comes in, they research it further, as necessary to respond to the specific inquiry.
	Re: PWS 1.4.4., this section also specifies “the contractor shall be able to assess each model’s appropriateness to work a particular problem or apply within a particular overall analysis methodology.” To accurately perform such an assessment, the CSIAC BCO contractor must have access to the requirements that define the models or software as well as results of tests runs by developers that ensured all requirements were met. How will this information be made available?	Any information in this area necessary to perform the contract will be provided to the contractor during the transition period.
	Re: PWS 1.4.4., are models and software contributed by all parts of DoD, or are there central offices, such as the DoD Modeling and Simulation Center that are the principal or only point of contact?	The DoD Modeling and Simulation Center is a primary point of contract, but models and datasets may be contributed by other sources as well.
	Regarding PWS section 1.4.5.2, in the bulleted list of items included in the Monthly Metrics report, two bullets refer to “STI Documents.” Does this term mean “models and software”?	The term "STI documents" is intended to cover all types of STI, which includes STI models and software.
	Regarding PWS section 1.4.5.2, how many of the technical inquiries were basic, and how many were extended for each existing IAC?	IACs have Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) on hand to address challenging technical issues. An estimated average of 80% of all technical inquiries answered within the areas covered by CSIAC require a SME.
	Re: PWS 1.6.3. [and the workload figures in para. 5.2], the number of trainings and meetings vary considerably among the three existing organizations. Is all this training associated with the BCO functions, or does it include meetings and trainings associated with TATs?	Trainings and meetings are a function of both the BCO and TATs and the numbers provided in the RFP para. 5.2 include trainings conducted and meetings attended as part of both BCO and TAT work.
	Re: PWS 1.6.3, the MSIAC training seems to be almost one‐on‐one; is that the anticipated trend?	The contractor's responsibility under this contract will be to provide training in accordance with contract requirements and the contractor's approved strategy. Customer requirements and the contractor's approach will determine how training is delivered, which will not necessarily be consistent with past trends.
	Regarding PWS section 1.10, given that the three IACs are presently in three different locations, does DTIC envision a single location for all CSIAC work? If not, are there DoD customers that expect CSIAC to be nearby?	The contractor's responsibility under this contract will be to establish the IAC facility(s) in accordance with contract requirements. Proposed approach is at the contractor's discretion.
	Are in-house training facilities / training rooms required?	See previous response.
	Regarding section H.14c, do key contractor personnel need to have a secret clearance on day 1 of the transition? Do other personnel need to have their clearances in place on day 1 of employment under this contract?	Key personnel will need to have clearances upon start of contract award.
	Regarding section H15b, “Contract Phase Out,” are the requirements for phase out contained in this RFP similar to those for the current contractors? When and how can the awardee expect phase out information from the current contractors?	Yes. During the transition period.
	Considerable information is devoted to contract phase‐out in section H.15. Section (2) (a), which specifies “furnish phase‐out services for up to 90 days after the contract expires.” Will these services beyond the term of the contract be negotiated as a separate phase‐out contract awarded?	Per H-15.b.b phase out will be executed as a separate task order.
	Regarding section J, when will Section J exhibits and attachment be released? We request they are released well in advance of the final RFP release, as they will contain important information needed for planning.	All Section J exhibits and attachments have been posted with the final RFP on 30 Jun.
	Regarding sections L4.5.1 and L4.5.2, please provide additional information about TEMS so that the contractor can describe the plan to integrate TEMS with relevant SME databases. What are the standard submission protocols for TEMS? What TEMS documentation is available? Must all STI holdings in CSIAC be transmitted to TEMS? If not, what are the criteria for mandatory submission? When and how will that information be released before the RFP is released? How is classified STI
transmitted to TEMS?	TEMS is being phased out and references to TEMS in the draft RFP were included in error. The CSIAC contractor will be required to upload all unclassified STI to a DTIC database using a web services interface. The definition of STI is included in the RFP. The proposal will need to address how the contractor will integrate the ISS with the DTIC database using web services. General criteria for transmission of STI to the DTIC database is provided in the CAT SOP which is an attachment to the RFP, more detailed criteria will be provided to the contractor during the transition period. Classified STI is transmitted by burning to a DVD which is mailed to DTIC.
	Re: PWS section 1.4.1.4 – it is unclear whether the tables of core holdings include any documents that were scanned under the TEMS initiative. Are any of these holdings hardcopies of files that have been already scanned?	It is up to the discretion of each IAC whether to keep documents that have been scanned and loaded into TEMS, so there may be some duplicates of documents that have been digitized. After scanning and uploading hardcopy documents, the IAC may destroy them.
	Re: PWS section 1.4.1.4 – To what extent will the CSIAC be responsible for paper STI documents from the collection that were not scanned prior to termination of TEMS (which one might expect to number in the 100,000’s?)	The scanning of high priority backlog paper STI documents for TEMS has been completed, though the IACs will continue to process new documents to add to TEMS. Note that although the TEMS web site will soon be taken down (all TEMS documents will be available through DTIC Online Access Controlled), document uploads will continue as before. Though the digitization of documents is encouraged, the IACs will still be in possession of some paper documents, as well as journals and books; see page 19-20 of the RFP for a detailed estimate of paper records. These paper records will transfer to CSIAC.
	Re: PWS section 1.4.4.1 –the purpose or end goal of providing a listing of inquiries with customers to SNIM is unclear. While it makes operational sense to keep the SNIM contractors apprised of the general activities and needs of various CSIAC customers, should it not be the responsibility of the CSIAC staff to assist in the identification of TAT level needs within the customer base, and pass those along to DTIC directly for follow up? If follow-up to inquiries is going to be made by SNIM contractors to assess the need or opportunity for TAT support, it should be done in coordinated fashion with the CSIAC BCO to ensure a cohesive customer service presence in the IAC.	The practice of sharing information between the BCO and TATs contractors was established to give equal awareness to the TAT contractors from a trends perspective and enhance the effectivenss of the IAC program. The BCO contractor will be responsible for assisting in the identification of TAT level needs. The list of inquiries to be provided to the SNIM contractors by CSIAC will not be released publicly. While the user's organization will be identified at a top level, the customer name and contact information will not be provided to the SNIM contractors. The intent is not for the SNIM contractor to "follow up" on these as "leads" for generating TAT work.
	Re: PWS section 1.5 – the delineation between service charges and CAT’s is unclear in some circumstances. Are there dollar value ceilings or considerations for non-CAT payment options under the service charge schema (invoices, credit cards, etc)? To what extent are the other methods of payments (non-CAT) subject to the restrictions in section 1.6.1 (1) through (5)? Does the restriction of one extended TI, search and summary, or analysis per customer hold if that customer reimburses costs via multiple methods (again, CAT, and invoices and credit cards?)	There are no restrictions on non-CAT services, however the contractor may not use the service charge system to circumvent the limitations in paragraph 1.6.1.
	Re: PWS para. 1.6.1 (sub 5) – what is the current working definition of customer? RA as individual? Department? Office Symbol? Agency? Service? For example, would two separate individuals from ABC/123 count as one or two customers? What if it was one from ABC/123, and one from ABC/1234? What if one was from ABC/123, and another from ABC/321?	The working definition is to define customer at the organizationally distinct level, meaning an organizational unit that has a distinct purpose and is separately identifiable from other units within the larger entreprise or organization. The application of the definition differs by customer. In questionable cases, the DTIC IAC PMO will assess the situation against the intent of the restriction.
	Re: PWS para. 1.6.2, with respect to the delineation between service charges and CATs, if the types of inquiries called out in the subsections of 1.6.2 can only be accessed as CATs (not as service charges via invoice, credit card, etc) then it will be significantly difficult to provide ‘timely response’ as required in Sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.4.1 (10 working days, or as otherwise agreed) ; as the process for CATs is likely to be of significantly longer duration than for other types of payments.	The structure of the PWS paragraph headings under 1.6 is unclear and will be corrected in the final RFP. The paragraph 1.6 heading will be changed to say "Categories of User Services" and 1.6.1 will be changed to say "Core Analysis Tasks". The inquiry services listed under 1.6.2 are not just limited to CATs and may be obtained through other service offerings.
	Re: PWS para. 1.6.2 – if the types of inquiries called out in the CAT subsections of 1.6.2 can be accomplished via other "non-CAT" payment method, these descriptions should be moved out of the CAT section, and placed more generally in section 1.5.	See previous response.
	Re: Section J, Item A015 - this CDRL (and its description in PWS para. 1.4.5.3) makes reference to Subscription Accounts, yet that item is not defined within the Draft RFP. Please clarify what is meant by Subscription Account.	The reference to "subscription accounts" was included in error. This term will be deleted from paragraph 1.4.5.3 and CDRL item A015 in the final RFP.
	Re: PWS section 1.4.1.2 – there either missing data or an omission in the third paragraph, sub-bullet (3); which appears to transition between two sentence with “related to The contractor shall”.	After "related to" the words "the CSIAC subject area." should be added to end the sentence. This will be corrected in the final RFP.
	Re: PWS paras. C.1.4.1.4 and C.5.2, Of the hard‐copy journals, do the figures represent individual issues or yearly volumes?	The amounts specified are the estimated holdings.
	Re: PWS paras. C.1.4.1.4 and C.5.2, How many hard‐copy journal subscriptions are in place? How are their costs accounted for?	This information is not collected by DTIC. All necessary allowable, allocable and reasonable costs incurred by the contractor to perform the contract are chargeable to the contract.
	Re: PWS paras. C.1.4.1.4 and C.5.2, How many electronic journal subscriptions are in place? How are their costs accounted for?	See previous response.
	Re: PWS paras. C.1.4.1.4 and C.5.2, Other STI are acquired in different media, the cost of which can vary significantly. How are
these costs accounted for?	See previous response.
	Re: PWS paras. C.1.4.1.4 and C.5.2, Will there be a plug‐in number for STI acquisition costs?	No.
	Section J, Attachment 8 was not provided in the June 13, 2011 release of J “Attachments and Exhibits.” When will it be provided?	Attachment 8 was provided with the final RFP release on 30 June 2011.
	Section L4.5.1 states that the ISS will support operations of “SNIM IAC.” Can we assume that should read “CSIAC BCO?”	Yes, this is an error and was corrected in the final RFP.
	It was recently announced that the IATAC Basic Center Operations Delivery Order (SP0700‐98‐D‐ 4002‐0345) was extended to 14 May 2012. Does this mean that transfer of IATAC work will be delayed until that option year is finished, even though the award date is projected to be late December 2011? Is this situation now the same as that outlined for DACS in the draft RFP?	IATAC and MSIAC BCO transitions will commence when the CSIAC contract is awarded. DSIAC BCO transition will commence at a later date.
	Are there contacts from the incumbents that we can speak to, to learn more about the current processes, procedures, materials to be transitioned, etc.	Each IAC maintains a website with contact information, however the incumbent IACs are under no obligation to share this type of information with other contractors.
	Who will actually complete the physical move of the hardware, software ,books, materials, etc? The award contractor or the incumbent contractors? Will the job be shared – the incumbents pack up and ship to the award contractor or will the incumbents pack up, ship, deliver, set up and train the award contractor?	These details will be finalized based on the awardee's transition plan, as set forth in its proposal (subject to approval/acceptance by the Government).
	Who will pay the cost of the physical move [for the transistion from the incumbents to the new contractor]? Should this cost be estimated as part of the RFP?	See previous response.
	Are special shipping arrangements needed? Will specific government personnel have to move the classified information?	There are approved commercial methods for shipping materials up to the Secret level.
	Will there be another industry day?	No.
	What do the different tabs in the MSIAC [Govt furnished] equipment excel spreadsheets mean? What do the different colors indicate? Will a legend be provided?	The spreadsheet was revised for the final RFP.
	Is marketing / selling for the advertisements to be a part of this RFP? What are the expectations? Should we have someone to go out and sell ads?	The Government's requirements for service promotion are as stated in PWS para. 1.4.4. It is left to the contractor's discretion as to which approache(s) it will use to meet these requirements.
	Who will provide and maintain the email service as well as the internet service? Should it be a part of the DTIC email and internet service or should it be provided separately as part of the Overhead of the facilities? Is there a direct mailing contract in place already? Will this mail go through the government mail office?	The contractor is responsible for establishing/obtaining all services necessary to perform the contract; no email, postal or internet services will be furnished by the Government unless otherwise stipulated in an individual CAT (and then applicable only to that CAT).
	Per PWS section 1.4.1.4 Media, in the draft RFP: Are there any environmental requirements such as: 1 )Are water sprinklers suitable for fire protection? 2 )Is a Halon substitute such as CEA 614 required for fire protection in the server room or the library or other areas? 3) Is a raised floor required for the server room? 4) What is the estimated storage space (number and size of shelves) for the hardcopies? 5) What is meant by hardcopy and how much storage is required at a more detailed level? 6) What is the type(s) of electronic storage required (will be transitioned) ? 7) Who will dispose of the hardware in Section J-3? -- Will that be the responsibility of the incumbent or the award contractor? 8) Will GFP property include desktop / notebooks, etc or should the award contractor provide that? 9) Are DR (disaster recovery systems/ high availability systems required? 10) Is OCR equipment available?	It is the contractor's responsibility to ascertain any environmental, safety, security/protection, legal and other similar types of requirements applicable to the facility(s) it offers, as well as the amount of storage space and equipment it will need to perform the contract. The term "hardcopy" means paper or physical. The CSIAC contractor will not be responsible for disposing of equpment already marked for disposition in Attachment J-3/GFP Lists. The GFP to be furnished will be as stated in the final RFP.
	Is there already a printing contract with a publisher for the newsletters in place? Will it move to the award contractor for the printing and distribution of the quarterly newsletter and other distributed materials?	This information is proprietary to the incumbent IAC contractors and is not collected by the DTIC IAC PMO. The contractor is repsonsible for establishing/obtaining all services necessary to perform the contract; existing newsletter services will not transition to the new contractor.
	In order to obtain some reference materials, membership is required in some organizations, affiliations, etc? How are the reference materials integrated into the library? Is the award contractor required to maintain any memberships in any organizations, affiliations, societies, etc? Who will pay for this?	The Government's requirements in these areas are as stated in the PWS. It is left to the contractor's discretion as to which approach(es) it will use to meet these requirements.
	Re: Page 16/25, what KM governance models are used by the legacy IACS?	This information is generally considered to be proprietary to the incumbent IAC contractors. Any information they are willing to share in this area will be provided to the CSIAC contractor during the transition period.
	Re: page 16/25, is there a perceived KM governance best practice in use by the legacy IACS?	See previous response.
	Re: Page 16/25, what are the existing KM taxonomies for the three legacy IACS?	See previous response.
	Re: Page 16/25, what level of tagging granularity is used by the legacy IACS? Library? Documents? Paragraph/Table/Image? Word?	See previous response.
	Re: page 19/125, PWS para. 1.4.1.4.a, is there a methodology/standard to be met with regard to verification and validation of STI?	See previous response.
	Re: para. 1.4.3.4, are there any concerns about PDF as a format?	No.
	Re: para. 1.4.3.4, does any of the content a-h or any other STI fall into or out of the category of a "record" from a record-retention perspective?	The terms "record" and "STI" have the same meaning.
	Re: para. 1.4.3.4, is there any of the content a-h or any other STI [that is] "perishable" according to a set of rules?	If the question is referring to perishable materials or artifacts such as flora, medicines, fabrics, etc., then, no these types of materials are not contained in the holdings.
	Re: the Monthly Metrics Report Format (embedded in page 2 of the Exhibit A, CDRL DD1423), the document format for annual report lists all IACs, is this just an example?	Yes. The CSIAC contractor would only report for CSIAC. Note the report format embedded in CDRL A006 has been updated in the final RFP.
	Are there any restrictions for subs on the BCO from being subs on SNIM, and are there any restrictions for prime contractors on the SNIM contracts to sub under this opportunity?	Please reference the questions and answers relating to OCI restrictions posted at the IAC website at http://iac.dtic.mil/iacs_wayahead.html under "About Us", "IAC Program Way-Ahead Considerations" and the "Q&A from Industry Day" and "Industry Day 15 October 2010 Questions and Answers" on the Fedbizopps website (also see direct link at https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=documents&tabmode=form&subtab=core&tabid=17dc575e9d0681b63efa3be440a0c84b).
	Re: the Monthly Metrics Report CDRL, what are the units of measure when updating metadata?	The number of new metadata records (document and contract info plus abstract) uploaded into TEMS by an IAC is reported on a monthly basis by the TEMS development team. There is one metadata record per document.
	Is it anticipated that instruction DODI 3200.14, May 13 1997 may be updated as a result of this initiative?	No. Any updates to the instruction that might be made in the future would not be made as a result of this initiative.
	Re: Attachment J-1/DD254, is any equipment to be transferred to the new contractor, Defense Security Service approved equipment?	Yes.
	Re: the MSIAC BCO GFP equipment listing in Section J (J-3), are there any C&A accredited systems and their certifications which will be migrated to new contractor? If so, please list.	Systems listed on the GFP list may include C&A accredited systems. Exact details of which equipment is C&A accredited will be provided to the contractor during the transition period. The incumbent contractors are compliant with all applicable federal C&A requirements for federal systems.
	Re: Section J, Attachment J-3, does "DTIC Turn in" mean that this equipment has been turned in, or is any of this equipment currently being used?	This equipment has been marked for turn in. All equipment scheduled for disposal before award of the CSIAC contract will be disposed of by the incumbent contractors. No GFP will be transferred to the CSIAC contractor that has previously been marked for disposition by the prior contractor.
	Re: PWS para. 1.2, M&S, what are the systems called (other than TEMS), and their description, purpose, and security access levels which are connected to the IAC internal systems? What are the requirements, parameters, and requirements related to this connectivity?	It appears this is question is referencing the sentence "The scope includes all classes of models and simulations, and may involve the interface of real-world systems (e.g., command and control systems, intelligence systems, weapon systems and components, sensors) with models or simulations...". The systems referenced in this sentence are systems used by DTIC registered users that are the subject of research or analysis requests they submit to the IAC, not systems that are connected to internal IAC systems.
	Re: PWS, para. 1.3, will any tactical response require O-CONUS travel?	Individual CATs may require OCONUS travel. It is also anticipated the contractor will need to travel to attend meetings and conferences, as part of the basic BCO function.
	Re: PWS para. 1.4.1.1, will there be a requirement for an ISS for unclassified and another ISS for classified process management?	The ISS must handle both classified and unclassified information. A single system cannot be both classified and unclassified.
	Re: PWS para. 1.4.1.4, is it required to maintain 100% of received hard copy "duplicate" reference documents, VHS videos, and materials, or may the "extra" hard copies be destroyed, once digital copies are created?	Records may be destroyed once digital copies have been created.
	What is the largest size of the database (in Bytes), and how many databases are there in the 3 IACS? How many rows of data are in the largest database table?	MSIAC has only one database (MSIS) and it is 2GB. DACS has 27 databases totaling 4 GB in size. The largest 3 DACS databases are: 1) 1.8 GB; Rows: 13 Million (7.8 million are in a single table in this database); 2) 603 MB; Rows: 5.3 Million; and 3)521 MB; Rows: 3 Million. IATAC has 13 primary databases of varying sizes. Four of those are used to manage the IATAC TAT Program and STI production, the remaining 9 support IATAC Core management, analysis, and dissemination. The largest IATAC database for non-STI processing activities is 225 MB of data. The largest database used for STI processing activities is 6.27 GB of data. The largest IATAC database for non-STI processing activities consists of 15,838 data records. The largest database used for STI processing activities consists of 26,436 data records.
	Re: PWS para. 1.4.5.2, what is the definition of "Web Inquiries" as opposed to a website "hit"?	A Web Inquiry is a view or download of an electronic (PDF, HTML, etc.) STI document from an IAC web site. IACs also report Web Page Requests ("hits"), which are views of other content on the web site (non-STI).
	Is there specific, existing, computer hardware which is required to be maintained other than to enable software, data, and/or model storage, retrieval, and testing?	All hardware requirements are as stated in the RFP.
	Re: PWS para. 1.4.1.4, Media, no mention is made of hosting a CSIAC website on the SIPRNET, JWICS, NSANET, JWAN networks. Many potential users of the CSIAC have access to these networks and don't have access to the Internet from their work space. Should an offeror propose to host sites on these networks as well? Should the DD254 represent this requirement?	The decision regarding what approach to propose is up to the offeror and will be evaluated by the government during the source selection.
	Re: PWS para. 1.5, have approved user fees been established for existing products and services? If so, please provide a copy.	There is no established price list that the CSIAC contractor will be required to adopt.
	Re: Clause 52.216-19, Order Limitations, the $5M order limitation doesn't appear to the summation of the current IATAC, DSIAC, and MSIAC contracts. This amount appears to be underestimated. Is there any historical data to suggest that $5M will be sufficient over the 66 month POP?	This limitation refers to the maximum dollar amount that can be ordered at one time, on one individual task order, not the cumulative maximum amount that can be ordered on the contract. The final RFP includes additional information in Section B on the minimum and maximum quantities that can be ordered on the overall contract.

Sheet2

Sheet3

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.