FIA2T_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_20160208.docx

FIA2T Request for Proposal FA8307-16-R-0049 Questions and Answers 9 February 2016

Some of the CLINs have the contract type as FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE FIRM. Please confirm that this is the same thing as Fixed Price Incentive (Firm target).

Exhibit A was a contract data requirements listing that was incorrectly identified in the final RFP as Exhibit A. Section J, Exhibit A, FIA2T Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) wording has been removed for all Contract Data CLINs i.e. 0013, 0016, 0017, 0019, 0020, 0021, 1013, 1016, 1017, 1019, 1020, and 1021 to read as follows:

From: “1. FIA2T Data (as specified in individual delivery/task orders) and Section J, Exhibit A, FIA2T Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) IAW the Statement of Objectives (Section J, Attachment 1), of the basic contract and as cited in each individual order.”

To: “1. FIA2T Data (as specified in individual delivery/task orders) IAW the Statement of Objectives (Section J, Attachment 1), of the basic contract and as cited in each individual order.”

Yes, The FPIF is the same as the Fixed Price Incentive (Firm target).

252.234-7002 How does the government intend to impose the EVM DFAR clause and EV reporting requirements in relation to

• TO/DO value vs clause thresholds

• Contract types (Cost vs FFP) EVM DFAR clause and EV reporting requirements will apply at the DO/TO level when a given DO/TO meets the threshold. For example, if the task order/delivery order has a value of $50 million or more, the requirements of 252.234-7002 will apply to the specific DO/TO.

The document cannot be uploaded without the “secure” feature. It is suggested the Offeror scan the pages requiring fill-ins and then convert to a PDF file which will allow it for typed responses.

Table L-1 Table L-1 references the common sections in each volume. Section L.1.15.4 in the table is "List of Tables and Figures", but in description on page 17 is section L.1.15.5 "Tables and Figures". Section L.1.15.4 in description is "Cover Page".

The four L.1.15.4 references in Table L-1 should be L.1.15.5. Additionally, the four L.1.15.4 references in Table L-2 should also be L.1.15.5.

Updated in new L

Table L-1, L.7.3 Table L-1 includes a 10 page maximum limit for the Cost/Price Volume IV Introduction Section (L.7.3). Please confirm that this page limitation applies only to the Introduction requirements of paragraph 7.3 and not to the remainder of that Section (7.3.1 through 7.3.17). The response requirements for paragraphs L.3.1 through L.3.17 require a substantial amount of information (e.g., substantiation of financial system approvals (i.e. copies of approval letters), explanation of estimating methods, analogous/historical data details, person-loading schedules, etc.). Please confirm that we have an unlimited page count to respond to paragraphs 7.3.1 through 7.3.17.

The page limitation applies only to the paragraph 7.3 and not to the remainder of that Section (7.3.1 through 7.3.17.)

Updated in new L

L.2.5.6

Updated in new L

L.4.1.5

L.4.3 and L.4.4 In order to bid as a Prime on the SB Set-Aside, do we need to be CMMI Level 3 certified? And/or ISO certified?

No, for the SB Set-Aside, the Offeror does not need any of these certifications.

L 4.4 Section L. 4.4 (Experience/Capability):

Qualification element #6, if the respondent is a first-tier subcontractor, should the contract number be the Prime to the Sub or the Government to the Prime?

Qualification element #6, if the respondent is a first-tier subcontractor, should this letter be from the Program or Contract Manager with the Prime Contractor or with the Government?

L.4.2.5 Statement of Work (SOW) and IMS.

It was noticed that templates for the SOW and IMS for one of the TOs for the UNRESTRICTED pool were provided, does the Government intent to also provide such templates (SOW and IMS) for the Partial SB Set-Aside pool?

If the Offeror is a first-tier subcontractor, the contract number shall be for the contract the Offeror had with the Prime. If the contract number for the Prime to the Government is available, it should be included.

If the Offeror is a first-tier subcontractor, the letter shall be from the Program or Contract Manager of the Prime Contractor.

No, templates for the SOW and IMS will not be provided for the SB Sample Task. Offeror should use best practices in providing these aspects of their proposal.

L.4.4 item 6

L.5.5 and L.6.5 The revised verbiage provided in response to Question Number 3 is not reflected in the updated conformed Section L document distributed with Amendment 002. Does the Government intend to update the conformed Section L?

REF: Question #3 referenced from Amendment 002: Issue: L.5.5 and L.6.5. subparagraph 2) references “in accordance with Section (Reference Microsoft Word File, “FIA2T_AtchL-9 Tailored FIA2T EZSource PPI Tool_20151019.docx”.” is incorrect. It should read as ” “in accordance with (Reference Microsoft Word File, “FIA2T_AtchL- 10_PastPerfRatingForm_20150728.docx”.

Rationale: This section’s scope is “Past Performance Ratings”, not “PPI Tool”.

Sentence should read “in accordance with ““FIA2T_AtchL- 10_PastPerfRatingForm_20160126.docx”.

Yes, The government has updated Section L with a new Section L, dated 4 February 2016. This update corrected reference errors and incorporated the form below:

“FIA2T_AtchL- 10_PastPerfRatingForm_20160202.docx” has been updated and included with Amend 0003

L.5.6 and L.6.6 The updated conformed Section L, with respect to the provided response to Question Number 4, changes the file name reference in section 6.6, but not section 5.6. Should the reference in section L.5.6 also be updated in a revised conformed Section L document? Also, the provided response to Question Number 4 indicates that the new filename is “FIA2T_AtchL- 10_PastPerfRatingForm_20150728.docx”, while the provided response to Question Number 3 indicates that the new filename is “FIA2T_AtchL-10_PastPerfRatingForm_20160126.docx”.

Please confirm that the intended filename is that specified in the provided response to Question Number 3.

In the Section L dated 4 February 2016 the references, to this form, in paragraphs L.5.5, L.5.6, L.5.7, L.5.9, L.6.5, L.6.6, L.6.7, L.6.9 and L.9 has been changed to:

FIA2T_AtchL- 10_PastPerfRatingForm_20160202.docx

L.5.7 and L.6.7

FIA2T_AtchL- 10_PastPerfRatingForm_20160202.docx

L.5.8 Past Performance Summary Content:

Shall the Offeror provide all pages of the Contract or Order Award form (e.g., SF 1449, SF 26, SF 33, DD 1155, GSA Form 300, etc.) or is only the top sheet necessary?

Are these pages subject to the page limits established for the Past Performance Volume?

The Offeror shall provide only those pages of their example contracts to substantiate: the Contract Number or Order Number, Contractor, U.S. Federal Government Agency, the effective award date, and the date the CO signed (see section L.5.8).

Yes, these pages are part of the page limit in the Past Performance Summary.

L.7.6.5 Please confirm prime contractors will be allowed to update labor categories and FFP rate table after contract award due to either of the following circumstances:

(1) Additional prime contractor business units and/or external subcontractors are needed in response to task order requirements

(2) Updated FPRR/FPRA (Ref. Government response to DRFP Q&As “the government will permit addition, deletion and modification of labor categories vetted with DCMA via FPRR/FPRA. FFP labor rates for new labor categories will be no higher than that established by FPRR/FPRA, and will be escalated at the rate and interval established in the FIA2T Basic contract from that point forward.”

Prime contractors will not be allowed to update labor categories and FFP rate tables for the FFP CLINs after contract award. If additional prime contractor business units and/or external subcontractors are needed in response to task order requirements, the prime has the option to proposed them for the specific DO/TO. In prior draft RFP Q&A the Government stated that additional /deletion and or modification of labor categories vetted with DCMA via FPRR/FPRA would be allowed. However, this is no longer the case.

L.8.3.5 vs. Section K

Updated in new L

L.8.3.14 & L.8.3.15

Updated in new L

L.8.6.11

Updated in new L

M.3.3 Second sub-paragraph, it references Section L.3, Table 1-4. We believe it should be Section L.3.4, Table L-5.

Para M.3.3 should reference Section L3.4 and Table L-5 in the second sub-paragraph referencing security certifications.

Updated in new M

Are there Sample Task 1 CDRL requirements besides the TSRD?

There are no CDRL requirements for Sample Task 1. The CDRLs at the end of the TSRD are example CDRLs that the Government Program Office could use in a DO/TO. The Offeror shall use their judgment to decide which relevant deliverables to include as milestones in the IMS as part of substantiating that requirement of Sample Task 1, L.3.2.8.

FIA2T_AtchL-5_Sample_Task_1_IMSTemplate_20150728

NSA TSAB will be the only security requirements.

Answer to question #13 on the Questions and Answers dated 29 January 2016 should read NSA TSAB certification versus NSA type 1 certification.

Updated in new Atch 4 and 5 (Amend 3)

23.

FIA2T_AtchL-4_Sample_Task_1_WBSDictionaryTemplate_20150728 Where Systems Engineering effort should be reflected in the WBS?

Please note in the draft RFP, the WBS provided includes the following statements:

• 1.3 UCM Program Management and Quality Assurance includes the following statement: "b. Systems Engineering efforts associated with the quality assurance program"

• 1.3.1 UCM Program Management includes the statement "... not included in systems engineering".

• 1.3.2 UCM Quality Assurance includes the statement: "The direct labor systems engineering efforts associated with the quality assurance program.

But the provided WBS structure doesn't specify where Systems Engineering effort should be reflected in the WBS.

The WBS Dictionary Template has various fields for including all of the labor categories including the Systems Engineering effort. What the Government wants in each subsection is how each Offeror uses their labor categories to solve Sample Task 1.

If specific requirements are left unstated, the Offeror is expected to use their best judgment to allocate them within the larger stated requirements.

24.

FIA2T_AtchL4_Sample_Task_1_WBSDictionaryTemplate_20150728.xlsx The definition in WBS # 1.1.2 still calls out "satisfying FIPS140-2, Security Level 4 requirements". Should this state “satisfy NSA TSAB and Tailored IASRD for FIA2T?"

This also occurs throughout the WBS definitions in this spreadsheet.

Yes, replace all FIPS related requirements and references with NSA TSAB and NSA references. Updated WBS posted with these Questions and Answers.

Also, answer to question #13 on the Questions and Answers dated 29 January 2016 should read NSA TSAB certification versus NSA type 1 certification.

Updated in new Atch 4 (Amend 3)

25.

FIA2T_AtchL-5_Sample_Task_1_IMSTemplate_20150728

The start date in Atch 5 has been updated to 1 Jan 2017.

Updated in new Atch 5 (Amend 3)

Updated in new Atch 5 (Amend 3)

“FIA2T_AtchL10_PastPerfRatingForm_2015072860126.docx”. Please confirm that the intended filename is “FIA2T_AtchL-10_PastPerfRatingForm_20160126.docx”, which is what appears in the conformed Section L.

In the Section L dated 4 February 2016 the references, to this form, in paragraphs L.5.5, L.5.6, L.5.7, L.5.9, L.6.5, L.6.6, L.6.7, L.6.9 and L.9 has been changed to:

FIA2T_AtchL- 10_PastPerfRatingForm_20160202.docx

Item 3 states “Updated Section L, Attachment L-10 by removing the PCS and NAICS code mapping to SOO Areas due to this no longer being a requirement in the past performance evaluation approach with the updated attachment, dated 26 Jan 16 that reflects this change.”

Does the Government plan to remove the references to NAICS and PSC CODES on page 2 of the current form, AMENDMENT 1 FIA2T_AtchL 10_PastPerfRatingForm_20160126.docx?

Revised FIA2T Section L Attachment 10 – Past Performance Rating Form by removing the NAICS code mapping.

Updated in new Atch 10 (Amend 3)

“FIA2T_AtchL11_PastPerf_ClientAuthLtr_201507280126.docx”. The updated conformed Section L includes the filename “FIA2T_AtchL-11_PastPerf_ClientAuthLtr_2010126.docx”. Please confirm that the intended filename in both instances is “FIA2T_AtchL-11_PastPerf_ClientAuthLtr_20160126.docx”.

In the Section L dated 4 February 2016 the references, to this form, in paragraphs L.5.7, L.5.9, L.6.7, L.6.9 and L.9 has been changed to:

FIA2T_AtchL-11_PastPerf_ClientAuthLtr_20160208.docx

13_Cost-Price_V1_20151006

Section 4.1.3 In Section 4.1.3., the Government lists Potential User/Support and Policy Groups to be surveyed/interviewed. Can the Government please identify these cities and states, whereas each Group may have different locations that should be identified rather than just the headquarters locations?

Section 4.4.2.2 - says “TBD” for locations of users meetings. Is it acceptable for Offeror to use a notional location to support their approach?

The Offeror may use the headquarter locations listed below and/or any notional locations to respond to the Sample Task and support their approach.

Air Force Space Command, Requirements Directorate, Intelligence Directorate and Logistics and Communications Directorate (AFSPC/DR, IN and LC) Colorado Springs, Colorado

Air Force Research Laboratory, Dayton, Ohio

Cryptologic and Cyber Systems Division (CPSD), San Antonio, Texas

Air Force Communications Agency (AFCA) Information Assurance Division (ECA), Belleville, Illinois

Section 4.4.1

Section 5.3

Solicitation Section I, Clause 52.216-19, Solicitation Section J Attachment 6 Solicitation Section B, CLIN 0001 establishes a FFP mechanism to pay the minimum order requirements of the IDIQ, stated here as $5,000.

Solicitation Section I, Clause 52.216-19, fill-in at Para (a) identifies a minimum contract dollar value of $5,000, consistent with Section B CLIN 0001.

However, Solicitation Section J Attachment 6, the Draft Task Order for the Post Award Conference intended to satisfy the minimum order requirement of the IDIQ, indicates that the value of the order will be $10,000 both in the header language and the Descriptive Data field of DO/TO CLIN 0001.

Please identify which minimum order value is correct? A: The $5,000 minimum order is correct.

The $5,000 minimum order is correct. The Section I document itself is a draft delivery order of what the first DO will look like. It is more informational than requirement to be submitted with the final RFP submission.

Updated in new SECTION L with Amend 3

12_BOE_RationaleForm_20150728 Part A-D, F & G Will the Government provide an example of the data required for part F - Labor and material estimate and G -Person-loading schedule of the BOE Rationale Form?

Will the Government specify the timescale (e.g. months, weeks, days, etc) offerors should use to display the information required?

In entering in information for TO1 at Level 3 the small box for Task Description on the BOE Rationale form does not provide enough space. Can we change the format to the proposed new format below? Section L requires sufficient detail and if we are completing the rationale at Level 3, we need to include the level 4 and potentially level 5 task description in the text of box C.

The BOE Form is a template to guide the Offeror’s in fulfilling the requirements in L.7.4 and L.8.4 for the two respective pools.

The Offeror is free to modify the BOE form to efficiently enter the required information in an organized manner, or may provide the required information in a separate convenient manner, such as comes from a fully loaded Microsoft Project file. The Offeror is expected to understand how and what form to provide the required information such that the Government can perform a Cost Realism Assessment, as described in the above section.

Section L, Table L-2 L.5.1 L.6.1 FIA2T_AtchL-9 Tailored FIA2T EZSource PPI Tool Section L, Table L-1 and Table L-2 cross-references the Volume III PPI section to Section L paragraphs L.6.2 and L.6.3 (or L

5.2 and L.5.3 for UNRESTRICTED pool), which appear to request the normal past performance descriptions an Offeror typically submits. However, Section L paragraph L.6.1. (or L.5.1 for UNRESTRICTED pool) states to submit PPI via the PPI tool. To add further confusion, attachment L-9, page 8, paragraph 4 states to generate hardcopies from the Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool and submit them in the Past Performance Ratings Forms section of Volume III, not in the PPI section of Volume III. Please clarify what the Government expects the Offeror to submit in Volume III, Past Performance Information (PPI).

The Government expects all Past Performance Information to be submitted using the PPI format.

To help clarify what the Government expects the Offeror to submit, paragraphs L.5.1 (UNRESTRICTED pool) and L.6.1 (Partial SB Set-aside pool) have been updated to state:

The Offerors must use the PPI Tool in order to electronically submit the PPI portion of the Past Performance Volume in accordance with the RFP instructions (Reference FIA2T_AtchL-9 Tailored FIA2T EZSource PPI Tool_20160208.docx” for Instructions to Offerors concerning downloading the PPI tool and entering information into the tool).

The Offeror shall also submit hard copies of the pages generated from the PPI tool as part of the PPI portion in the Past Performance Volume.

Additionally, the Government updated “FIA2T_AtchL-9 Tailored FIA2T EZSource PPI Tool” to further refine the input instructions on the Program Details Tab (including program description instructions, relevant summary instructions, and instructions on CPARS/PPIRS or Past Performance Rating Form identification) and POC and Key Individuals Tab input instructions.

The Government also deleted para L.5.8 (UNRESTRICTED pool) and L.6.8 (Partial SB Set-aside pool) entitled “Past Performance Summary Content” all summary description instructions are now part of the “FIA2T_AtchL-9 Tailored FIA2T EZSource PPI Tool” Program Details tab.

The Government updated Table L-1 and Table L-2 to reflect these changes.

Section L, Table L-2 L.5.5 L.6.5 L.5.7 L.6.7 FIA2T_AtchL-11_PastPerf_ClientAuthLtr

The following is the order of precedence for past performance sources:

1) If an interim or final PPIRS/CPARS report is available, the Offeror shall use PPIRS/CPARS report as the basis for the past performance.

2) If an interim or final PPIRS/CPARS report is not available, the Offeror shall use a Past Performance Rating Form in accordance with “FIA2T_AtchL-10_PastPerfRatingForm_201601260202.docx

Additionally, L.5.1 (UNRESTRICTED pool) and L.6.1 (Partial SB Set-aside pool) have been updated to state:

The Offeror shall also submit hard copies of the pages generated from the PPI tool as part of the PPI portion in the Past Performance Volume.

The government deleted the Past Performance Rating Form SECTION from Tables L-1 and L-2.

Additionally, L.5.6 and L.6.6 was updated to state:

Prior to using a Past Performance Rating Form, the Offeror is responsible for verifying whether a past performance ratings exist in PPIRS/CPARS (Reference FIA2T_AtchL-9 Tailored FIA2T EZSource PPI Tool_20160208.docx” (new file name) for Instructions to Offerors for entering information into the tool).

The Government updated “FIA2T_AtchL-9 Tailored FIA2T EZSource PPI Tool” to further refine input instructions for the Program Details Tab regarding the CPARS/PPIRS or Past Performance Rating Form identification.

The Government also updated “FIA2T_AtchL-11_PastPerf_ClientAuthLtr_201600208” (new file name) to state:

The Offeror shall also submit their Client Authorization Letter as part of the proposal in accordance with L.5.7 (2) for the UNRESTRICTED pool or L.6.7 (2) for the Partial SB Set-Aside pool.

The Government updated Table L-1 and Table L-2 to reflect these changes.

Section L, Table L-2 L.5.1 L.6.1 FIA2T_AtchL-9 Tailored FIA2T EZSource PPI Tool

The Offerors must use the PPI Tool in order to electronically submit the PPI portion of the Past Performance Volume in accordance with the RFP instructions (Reference FIA2T_AtchL-9 Tailored FIA2T EZSource PPI Tool_20160208.docx” (new file name) for Instructions to Offerors concerning downloading the PPI tool and entering information into the tool).

The Offeror shall also submit hard copies of the pages generated from the PPI tool as part of the PPI portion in the Past Performance Volume.

The Government updated Table L-1 and Table L-2 to reflect these changes.

Updated in new Atch 10 (Amend 3)

development task and 1 for the production task or can we submit a single plan covering both efforts?

Subcontracting plan is not for the tasks, but for the fulfillment of the basic contract subcontracting goal.

Additional the subcontraction plan SECTION for table L-2 (Partial SB Set-Aside) was removed

L.7.1 L.8.1