MPSC_III_Questions_and_Responses.pdf

# Questions Response

CLINs x002 Travel state that the Program Manager and Contractor Officer shall approve travel. Is approve considered granted upon signature in SPOT? What is the timeline in which the PM and CO approve travel requests?

Travel requests are not approved in SPOT. SPOT is used for a different purpose, not travel approval. The current contractor has developed a process for travel requests, and each offeror is free to propose their own mechanism for gaining

Government approval of travel requests. In general, a document that details the requirement and has a place for the PM/Government's signature will suffice. There is no established timeline for granting of these requests, but in general the PM and CO approved such requests as quickly as possible and in some cases the offeror may need to follow-up if a request is still pending.

CLINs x003 Material state that the Gov’t Program Office and the CO shall approve. What is the process to obtain approval from each? What is the timeline in which the PM and CO approval material requests?

The current contractor has developed a process for material requests, and each offeror is free to propose their own mechanism for gaining Government approval of material requests. In general, a document that details the requirement and has a place for the PM/Government's signature will suffice.

There is no established timeline for granting of these requests, but in general the PM and CO approved such requests as quickly as possible and in some cases the offeror may need to follow-up if a request is still pending.

FAR 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages – what is the amount of per calendar day for delay? Clause inadvertently included. Will be removed on the next RFP amendment.

4 Will this effort require the use of weapons? (Not specified either way) No, weapons are not required.

DFAR 252.244-7001 – Is the prime contractor required to have an approved purchasing system?

Yes, The contractor is expected to follow DFAR 252.244-7001 and 52.244-2.

DCMA will make the determination whether the requirement is applicable and to what extent the Contractor's purchasing system requires review IAW FAR

44.3.

6 Does the prime have an approved GFP system?

Not releasable under FOIA Exemption (b)(4) and the Trade Secrets Act

Does the prime have an approved purchasing system? Not releasable under FOIA Exemption (b)(4) and the Trade Secrets Act

Is there a current process for delivering MPEs to deployed units (before or during deployment)?

There is a MP Enterprise Process for delivering MPEs. The Government will provide the document detailing the process with the next RFP amendment.

Regarding deployed units, the contractor works with the respective MAJCOM to determine the best timing for delivery of the latest MPE (before or during deployment), as each unit may be unique.

page 32, SS #9: Can the Gov't define the MPE Letter? Is that an accreditation letter (ATO/ACO) or a unit or MAJCOM specific configuration control tool?

It is not an accreditation letter. It is a configuration management document.

The Government will provide a document explaining the MPE letter with the next RFP amendment.

10 SS #16: what is the centrally accessible tool for CM Library? Currently it is Mission Planning Central

11 SS #19-Was the Mission Planning PPP made available?

It was not. The Government will make available the unclassified sections of the

PPP with the next RFP amendment.

12 SS #24: is there an OSSE Plan that defines the metrics to be collected?

Yes. The Government will make the OSS&E baseline document available with the next RFP amendment.

SS #29: are the SSRs fulfilling the INOSC-East/West positions? Are those really

SSRs, as those duties appear beyond the scope of "Standard AF SSR" Those positions are listed in the SSR Staffing tables

Due to the location and MAJCOM specific nature of the INOSC requirement, the

Government chose to list those under the SSR staffing table, as opposed to the

MPSSF. The requirements for providing INOSC services are detailed in PWS

2.9.1.5. They do not perform the same duties as a standard SSR, but they are listed in the SSR staffing table under ACC because the requirements are location specific and will be included in ACC's task orders and not the MPSSF.

There is no reference to contractor site requirements in the SOW. Would the

Government please confirm that there are no MPSC III requirements for support that will take place at a contractor facility?

Correct. In the PWS, Section 5 "Government Shared Property" it states "The

Government will provide physical workspace to complete all tasks in the PWS.

The contractor will have access to the necessary facilities, computers, telephones, workspace, required for the specific contract..."

Would the Government please confirm that all MPC Tasks being solicited under MPSC III will be executed in Government facilities on Hill AFB?

Yes, as per the answer to Question #15. The government will provide physical workspace to complete all the tasks in the PWS, including MPC. The staffing table indicates the location of MPC personnel is Hill AFB.

MPSC III RFP Questions

Given that some of the support requirements are too broad to allow for flexibility and ongoing variances in systems supported, can the government provide any current staffing information. For instance, a.) total number of hours per year, b.) total number of hours by location, c.) total number of hours by the 3 functional levels (Reach-back, on-site, full), d.) total number of hours by security clearance (S, TS/SCI, TS/SCI with Flight-line access), e.) total number of FTE, or e.) the hours provided to http://www.ecmra.mil?

No staffing information will be provided, as this is information that each offeror is required to provide in the staffing table. Each offeror has the ability to provide their own solution based on the information provided in the various components of the RFP. The basic requirements have been provided, including the description of required services/tasks for SSRs, as well as the number of systems with a + or - 20% variance/flexibility, the different security and IA requirements, and varying support levels. The requirements of each function for the SSF are detailed in the PWS. It is up to each offeror to determine their performance based services approach to each requirement. The staffing table exists to ensure offerors adequately understand the requirements and have proposed a technically acceptable solution for the staffing approach as evaluated per Section M.

Will the Government please provide the MPSSF historical estimate of hours?

This information was provided during the MPSC II solicitation, and we would request the Government provide this updated information to offerors for

MPSC III.

The # of MPSSF hours were provided in the MPSC II RFP because the

Government was transitioning from a Level of Effort to a Fixed Price effort, and because that data existed. MPSC II was a fixed price effort and the # of hours have not been tracked and are not available. Also offerors are free to propose their unique approach/staffing to fulfill the MPSSF functions detailed in the

PWS and proposals will be evaluated per Section M for technical acceptability.

Are there any restrictions on the ability to “remote-in to a computer” to a field site due to security classification or any other issues?

Yes, electronic remote capability has not been fully developed. "Remote methods" currently include mailing a disc with instructions or downloading software patches from MPC/AMRDEC. "Remoting-in" to a system is not currently in use.

What is the total obligation amount to date on the current MPSC II contract?

How much was obligated in the last year? Roughly $118M to date, and roughly $25-27M last year.

In relation to the two pricing table categories for a Standard USAF SSR (PWS

2.2.1), will the Government please identify the minimum security clearance requirements for a Standard SSR at each location listed in the Staffing and

Pricing Tables?

As stated in the PWS (2.2.1.1) and both the staffing and pricing tables, there are

"SECRET" and "TS/SCI" security clearance requirements, therefore SECRET is the minimum security clearance requirement.

Can the Government please provide the full list of the different Non-MPE

Systems that will potentially require support under MPSC III?

The Government has provided a list of some non-MPE systems under PWS

2.2.1.4. Also, please note non-MPE hardware also includes unit procured desktop/laptop computers that are running MP software. The number of non-

MPE systems are listed in the staffing/pricing table.

Will the Government please confirm if the MPSSF will provide support for Non-

MPE systems?

In general, non-MPE support is limited to supporting the Mission Planning software/data products and not the hardware. The SSRs will ensure the latest software/data versions are loaded; but will not troubleshoot hardware issues.

Similarly, the MPSSF would provide support for MP software but not hardware issues (e.g. TCNOs are based on SDC-MPE pairings running under the protected

MP-OU and provided "as is" for non-MPEs; or, the MPSSF would also support a helpdesk call relating to running JMPS, but not a hardware failure).

What is the historic number of trouble tickets submitted to the MPSSF by a.)

year, b.) month, c.) week, and d.) from each location requiring support?

The helpdesk opened an average of 89 helpdesk tickets per month (over the last 12 months).

What types of help request are usually received by the MPSSF and what is the average time required to close a ticket?

A large percentage of requests are related to how to get on ID for software, or how to obtain encryption passphrases and can be closed the same day. When there are HW issues that are covered under warrantee, a ticket might be held open for a while while it is worked through through the supply vendor.

25 What trouble ticket system is being used?

The helpdesk uses the tool that comes with SharePoint 2010 (on MPC).

Would the Government please provide a more detailed description of the MPE and Non-MPE systems at each location requiring support? Specifically, in order to properly assess the requirements of each location, offerors must be able to determine what the true needs of that location are. Simply providing a number of "systems" per location within a +/- 20% variance does not give offerors a clear enough understanding of the site requirements to develop a realistic BOE for the location. In order to do so, we need to know more detailed information about the systems being used. The current information provides the incumbent with an unbalanced advantage in their understanding of the minimum staffing requirements that can be utilized to execute the work.

Response is being developed.

In order to determine what level of SSR effort is required at each location we must know if the systems are site dependent or can be updated remotely

The answer depends on the definition of "remote support" and solutions which might be possible in the future. A unit's networked structure might allow systems to be updated from an administrator's computer within a stand-alone network in the room, or within a base, or maybe even within the whole MP-OU.

Remote support might include having systems or harddrives rotated through a central location for updating, then returned back to the users. Another remote solution might include an SSR supporting more than one base within a local area. The Government doesn't want to restrict any offeror to a specific solution;

but will evaluate the technical acceptability of the poposed solutions.

Are there any communications that occur through MPC at the secret or top secret level? How do secure exchanges occur?

No MPC is restricted to sensitive/FOUO, unclassified information. Secure communications occur through the the proper channels (SIPR emails, STE, etc.).

Would the Government please confirm which locations listed in the Staffing and Price Tables that are currently being supported under MPSC II?

The Government will not provide this information other than to say many of the locations listed are currently being supported under MPSC II. The

Government is asking for the offerors proposed # of FTEs in the staffing table and various prices in the pricing table should support be required at any of the listed locations, and the offerors should be able to do their own research to determine how they would best support each location should it be required.

What locations listed in the Staffing and Pricing Tables are not currently being supported under MPSC II?

This information will not be provided. Each offeror is to assume that every location listed requires support and should propose accordingly.

Would the Government please provide the current number of MPE and Non-

MPE systems being used at each location, or is it the Government's position that the numbers provided in the staffing and pricing tables are the current numbers of MPE and Non-MPE systems being used at each location?

It is the Government's position that the numbers provided reflect the most up to date information on these systems. The number is always subject to change, and there is a + or - 20% to allow for flexibility in changing number of system. If systems fall outside of this range, prices for the affected locations will be re-negotiated after contract award using the NTE pricing tables.

Will the Government provide the criteria for supporting sites IA requirements as it relates system accreditation and Authority’s to Operate or Connect for both the garrison systems as well as the deployed sites?

The IA requirements for accrediting MPEs are handled through the Mission

Planning Enterprise Security Team and are not within the scope of this contract.

This SSF will ensure the ATCs/ATOs are in place, and coordinate with the

Enterprise security team. However the ATO/ACT for MPC is the responsibility of the contractor for MPSC III as explained in PWS 2.11.3.4 and 2.11.3.5

Are all the systems covered under one DAA? i.e. under AFSPACE under the

MPSSF at Hill or are they covered via separate DAA’s within the various

COCOM support theaters? All AF systems are under one DAA at AFSPACE.

Are there a series of SV-1’s equivalents that depicts the topography, components, locations and networks that the MP Systems are being hosted on that would permit remote managing the enterprise? Access to this information would increase our ability to offer solutions for innovations on modernization, efficiencies and cost saving solutions?

Currently, each base has their own Mission Planning Organizational Unit (MP-

OU). This resticts remote management of the systems across bases. In addition, the 2 INOSCs (East and West) operate differently and add additional restricions between the two.

MPSC III Pricing Table: Is it the anticipation of the government’s that the offeror create their own Total Evaluated Price Tab within the Pricing template provided?

No, it is not. It is the Government's anticipation that each offeror will fill in every non-grayed out cell in the entire pricing table, as requested. The

Government will establish the notional requirements prior to receipt and evaluation of proposals based on the pricing table and no modifications to the pricing table are to be made. Please fill in per the instructions, ensuring no required cells are left blank. The pricing table is not to be altered, just filled in.

MPSC III Pricing Table and MPSC III Section M 5.4.3: As stated in Section M 5.4.

“The offeror’s TEP will be computed using Section J-Pricing Table file and will account for the 6-year period of performance and FAR Clause 52.217” However there are two additional option years in the pricing table “CY 23 and CY 24” are these years to be included in TEP.

This contract is anticipated to be awarded at the end of FY/CY 17, and may extend into the very beginning of CY 24. Therefore to cover a potential 6 1/2 year period of performance it is necessary to have proposed monthly costs covered for CY 17-24. Yes, these years are included in the TEP.

MPSC III Pricing Table and MPSC III Section M 5.4.1: Is it the anticipation that the TEP include the rollup only for both the SSR worksheets and MPSSF worksheets under one CLIN 001 entry for each period year?

No, the TEP is not a roll-up. The notional requirements will be established (prior to receipt and evaluation of proposals) and is used for evaluation purposes only.

MPSC III Pricing Table and MPSC III Section M 5.4.2: As stated in Section M

5.4.2 “The Cost Reimbursable (CR) Travel (CLIN 0002) and Material (CLIN 0003) will not be evaluated as part of the TEP but will be reviewed for price reasonableness at the task order level”. Is it the government’s anticipation that the offeror does not need to show any details in the Pricing table for travel or material costs for the SSRs and MPSSFs requirements?

Yes, that is the Government's anticipation. When task orders are issued that include travel and materials, the Government will review proposed costs for price reasonableness.

MPSC III Pricing Table and MPSC III Section M 5.4.3: As stated in Section M

5.4.3 “The Not Separately Priced (NSP) Data CLIN 0004 costs shall be included in the other proposed prices”. Will the government please clarify what is meant by other proposed cost?

It means that costs associated with providing the required CDRLS should be wrapped up in costs associated with the fixed price for services for CLIN 0001.

MPSC III Pricing Table NTE Pricing: Is it the governments anticipation that the

NTEs taps in the pricing template are computed by the monthly costs determined in the SSR and MPSSF tabs and that these monthly by region rollups will not be duplicated in the TEP

No it is not. The NTE prices are not a roll up. They reflect the maximum the

Government will pay for new locations or existing locations that require a change to the MPE # that fall outside the + or - 20%. It is necessary to establish the ability to add new locations and this mechanism allows this work to be considered an in-scope addition of requirements/locations. It is reasonable to expect that the NTE prices will factor into the TEP.

MPSC III Pricing Table Instructions CYXX NTE Pricing: As stated in the instructions “Note: this spreadsheet is requesting the MONTHLY firm-fixed price per location (these costs are subject to future negotiations between the

USG and the contractor)” It is anticipated that any of the costs in the Pricing include considerations for USG requirements.

The Government does not understand this question. All of the requirements in the pricing table are considered United States Government (USG) requirements which required contracted support. The NTE prices exist to allow for negotiating monthly rates for new locations, or locations requiring updates to

MPE/Non-MPEs #s. Please clarify question if further response is necessary.

MPSC III PWS Attachment 1 Section 2.2.1.2.1: As stated in Section 2.2.1.2.1

“When a user has a question or an issue, they are able to “reach-back” to the helpdesk through the phone or email to get help from an SSR. Software is updated through remote methods or by utilizing shipping services to distribute the media (i.e. hard drives or discs). The SSR shall provide limited on-site support when the systems cannot be managed through other means. There is no support provided for non-MPE systems. This is the lowest level of support”

Is it the government’s anticipation that any location that only has “Non-MPE” requirements will not require any SSR requirements?

Each location included on a task order will require MPE support. Non-MPE support is in addition to MPE requirements and only provided under a "Full

Support" option.

MPSC III PWS Attachment 1 Section 2.2.1.2.1: “Is it the government anticipation that the SSR reach-back support will be provided by an SSR that has been assigned to another location as either a Basic or Full requirement?

No, the Government anticipates each offeror will provide their proposed solution for how to best meet each support level, and each proposal regarding staffing/human resources will be evaluated IAW Section M. The Government is not dictating how this support will be provided under this performance based acquisition.

Reference PWS 2.11, for team sizing and code base splitting, can we find out the percentage split between the Java and Microsoft .net or SharePoint code base / development needs of the MPC?

Approximatly 80% of the code is written in C#, the other 20% of coding is split between JavaScript, xml, CSS, Silverlight, etc.

Reference PWS 2.11, does the Govt has an existing Agile Management Tool such as Rally or Jira?

No. There is no tool in place. The Government has been following the CER process as explained in the PWS.

Does the USMC currently receive any on-site SSR support, and if so, at what locations? Yes, the USMC currently receives on-site SSR support at Quantico, VA.

Is there currently any on-site SSR support provided specifically to the UH-1

MDS? Yes. Malmstrom and FE Warren are currently receiving support.

Are there any locations listed in the staffing and pricing templates that currently receive no on-site SSR support (ergo, all reachback)? Reachback does not exist on the current MPSC contract. The different support levels on MPSCII are based on operational tempo.

PWS 2.2.1.2.1 Reach-back Support states "MPEs are sustained without the SSR being on-site daily". Will the Government consider any proposed Basic On-site

Support or Full Support solutions that do not include the SSR being on-site

"daily" as being technically acceptable?

The proposed approach must meet the requirements in the PWS and will be required to be able to meet the required response times. As this effort is performance-based, it is responsibility of the offerors to propose their unique approach to the government.

PWS 2.2.1.2.1 Reach-back Support states "there is no support provided for non-

MPE systems". Please confirm that non-MPE systems cannot be supported under any circumstances through reachback support?

If a customer only orders reachback support at a location, no Non-MPE's are supported.

The revised instructions to the pricing template released in Amendment 01 states "Firm-fixed prices shall include BUT ARE NOT LIMITED to:". Would the

Government please clarify the intended definition of "shall"? Ergo, is the

Government staing that all offerors MUST include a minimum of all ODCs specifically listed in the pricing template instructions within their FFP?

Yes.

The revised instructions to the pricing template released in Amendment 01 states "Firm-fixed prices shall include BUT ARE NOT LIMITED to:". Would the

Government please advise if any of the ODCs listed in the pricing template instructions can be billed against either CLIN 002 or CLIN 003 in the course of

TO execution?

No, CLIN 0002 is specifically for government directed travel costs IAW FAR

XXXXX and CLIN 0003 is specifically for government approved material costs.

All costs associated with providing mission planning services IAW the PWS shall be priced under CLIN 0001 as a Firm-Fixed Price.

If a ordering customer selects "reachback" support, and the need arises for a

SSR to provide "limited on-site support" are all costs associated with the SSR traveling to the on-site location billed against CLIN 002?

Response is being developed.

Section L 4.3.1 states that "the contractor shall complete the Staffing Table in

Attachment L-10". Please confirm that the completed Attachment L-10 is exempt from the page count restrictions of Volume 2 - Technical Volume?

Correct. The Staffing table is excluded from the page count of Volume 2 -

Technical Volume. Section L paragraph 2.1.8.1 will be amended accordingly.

55 Are there any standard duty hours that on-site SSRs are expected to work? No, however, it is reasonable to expect that the SSR will be available on-site to interact with the unit as needed to provide all requirements in the PWS.

Are on-site SSRs expected to be on-call outside of standard duty hours, and if so, what is the response time requirements for responding to an inquiry outside of standard duty hours?

Per PWS paragraph 2.2.1.3.12, "When not immediately available, an SSR shall respond to a Mission Planning User’s request within two (2) hours of initial contact. The Mission Planning User can make their request known through the

24/7 helpline" when supporting deployed units. The contractor would be responsible for ensuring that all other requirements for PWS Section 2.2.1.3.

are met for non-deployed units.

PWS Section 1.2 mentions the Air National Guard (ANG) as one of the support organizations. Is this correct?

ANG units are able to call the MPSSF help-desk if needed, but at this time no

SSR support for the ANG is provided under MPSC III.

PWS Section 2.4.1.11 states the contractor shall create and utilize feedback instruments for students to report satisfaction with their training experience….Does the contractor have autonomy to decide which feedback instrument is developed to solicit feedback?

The feedback instrument will need to be coordinated with the Government.

Due to OPSEC concerns, commercial sites (e.g. SurveyMonkey) won’t be allowed.

Can the Government provide a copy of the Hill AFB requirements for maintaining network security accreditation identified in PWS section 2.11.1.2?

There are no unique Hill AFB requirements for maintain network security accreditation at this time; but since cybersecurity is such a fluid requirement, this paragraph ensures the contractor will maintain security accreditations with the ever changing requirements.

PWS Section 2.11.1.5 states that any specialized computers required for performing corrective, perfective, and adaptive maintenance on MPC shall be provided by the contractor? Can the Government provide further historical data as to the quantity and specification of the computers which have been needed to fulfill this requirement?

On the previous contract, MPC developers were in an off-site facility.

Now MPC will be hosted on the MilCloud. The Government will provide

AF Standard Desktop Computers on the NIPRNet in the Government provided workspaces. If MPC developers need non-SDC configured computers to handle multi-threading, or more than 2 monitors attached, or if they need to have admin rights etc; they would need to run those systems on a stand-alone network. In the past, the

Government purchased these systems (and they will be included in the

GFE). Tech refresh hardware updates, or additional hardware (if needed) will be purchased by the contractor. The quantity needed on the next contract depends on the technical solution proposed.

Section L 7.1.1 requests “ Completion of blocks 13 and 15 and signature and date for block 27 of the SF 1447.” Because there is no SF 1447 among the solicitation documents, should references to the SF 1447 be changed to “SF

33” and references to completion of blocks be changed to “blocks 15 through

18 of the SF 33”? If the answer is no, please confirm that offerors should follow this L 7.1.1 instruction using an otherwise blank SF 1447.

Yes, the reference should be to fill in blocks 13, 15 (A,B, and C) and 16, 17, and

18 for signature and date on the SF33. This will be corrected in an amendment.

Section L 7.3.4.2 refers to a list of Applicable Documents “provided to the offerors as an annex to the PWS attachment in the solicitation, which includes a minimum list of Government Compliance Documents.” This list does not appear to be among the solicitation documents. Can you provide it? Response is being developed.

Section L 7.1 states that “The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract . . .”. Does “Model Contract” refer to the SF 33 in the solicitation or something else? Please clarify.

Yes, the model contract is the SF 33 (RFP). Also, any amendment to the RFP (SF

30) needs to be signed in block 15.