AFLCMC_Unique_IT_Support_Questions_and_Answers_21Feb2018.pdf

AFLCMC Unique IT Support Questions and Answears 21 February 2018

Number Document Page Section No. Paragraph Question Answer:

1 Section L 2 of 20 2.f 1 Item f instructs that the proposal acceptance period is 180 days and should be specified, in a clear statement by Offerors made in Section A of the proposal. First, since this is different than the 365 days listed on the SF 33 for Solicitation No. FA8604‐18‐R‐1001, will the government provide the required nuber of days for acceptance? Second, this proposal does not have a "Section A," so will the government please indicate in what section(s) / volume(s) this should be specified?

Proposals shall be valid for 365 days as indicated in block 12. Section L has been revised to remove conflicting language.

Section A is the Solicitation/Contract Form, specifically the SF33.

2 Section L 3 of 20 2.1.a 1 The government encourages offerors to make written requests, such as questions within 10 days of solicitation release, but the FBO.gov announcement says that questions are due on Feb 1, 2018; will the government please confirm the due date for questions related to Solicitation Solicitation No. FA8604‐18‐R‐1001?

The last date to submit questions was 1 February 2018.

3 Section L 4 of 20 2.5 1 Solicitation No. FA8604‐18‐R‐1001 indicates required use of US Army AMRDECK SAFE, are Offerors required to register as system users prior to proposal submission or when/if directed by the government?

AMRDEC SAFE has no user accounts for SAFE ‐ authentication is handled via email and CAC.

Everyone has access to SAFE, and the application is available for use by anyone.

4 Section L 5 of 20 3.3.b 1 Solicitation No. FA8604‐18‐R‐1001 indicates that Offerors may use 8‐point font or larger for tables, charts, graphs, and figures. However, the Proposal Receipt Checklist, indicates 10‐ point font on page 3, item 10 re: L.3.3; will the government please verify the smallest acceptable font?

For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, Offerors may utilize 8‐point fonts or larger. For all other proposal elements outside of tables, charts, graphs, or figures, offerors shall utilize 12‐ point or larger Times New Roman. Font sizes shall not be manipulated to get under the proposal page limits.

5 Section L 6 of 20 3.5 3 Solicitation No. FA8604‐18‐R‐1001 directs Offerors to complete the Solicitation Cross‐ Reference Matrix at Attachment 1 of the ITO indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the ITO, PWS, CLIN numbers, and CDRL. Should this document be submitted as an attachment or embedded within the Technical Volume as indicated on page 9 of 20 under Item 4.2.3?

Yes, the Cross Reference Matrix should be submitted as set forth in paragraph 4.2.3 of Section L.

6 Section L 9 of 20 4.2.4.1.a.f Bullets under paragraph 1 Will the government please specify whether Offerors are expected to provide an (1) overall transition approach as specified in Solicitation No. FA8604‐18‐R‐1001 PWS under Section 5.11, (2) if the government requires three separate Transition Plans mapped to Task Order PWS' Section 5.11, or (3) four Transition Plans? If seperate Transition Plans are required will the government please increase total page requirements?

The instructions for submitting transition plans in relation to paragraph 5.11 of the PWS are included in paragraph 4.2.4.1 of Section L. A single transition plan should be submitted as an overall approach, addressing each of the three task order transitions within.

7 Section L 11 of 20 4.3.2 1 Does the government require consent letters from each proposed subcontractor or only from major subcontractors for whom past performance is submitted?

Past Performance consent letters are required for subcontractor performing 20% or more of the proposed effort.

8 Section L 14 of 20 4.4.3 Section Heading Is the Labor Rate Matrix Attachement 6 or Attachment 4? The labor rate matrix is Sect L Attachment 6.

9 Section L, Attachment 2 1 Downloading the PPI Tool

N/A Will the government please post the link to the PPI Tool? The solicitation was revised 26 January 2018 to include the ppi_tool.accdb attachment.

10 Section L, Attachment 2 3 N/A Item 8 Should the Offeror input information for all teaming partners, or only for major subcontractors?

This information is required of the Offeror and all proposed major subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform twenty (20) percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price.

11 Section L, Attachment

N/A N/A N/A Will the government please confirm that the Proposal Hand Receipt Form is not applicable if Offeror's proposal is submitted through a service like FedEx or UPS, and that the shipment confirmation from the carrier would be the equivalent of the Form provided?

The Proposal Hand Receipt form is provided as a courtesy document to track the timeliness of proposal deliveries. As indicated on the form, the signature of the deliverer is only requested if other than a commercial carrier and United States Postal Service are utilized.

Failure to properly document timeliness of proposal delivery is at the Offeror's own risk.

12 Section L, Attachment (Proposal Receipt

Checklist)

1 N/A N/A Is the Offeror expected to complete the Proposal Receipt Checklist and submit it with proposal?

Yes, offerors are expected to complete the Proposal Receipt Checklist and submit it with the proposal.

Number Document Page Section No. Paragraph Question Answer:

13 Section L, Attachment

(Proposal Receipt Checklist)

1 4 N/A Does the government require 180 or 365 day acceptance period? A 365 day acceptance period is required.

14 Section L, Attachment (Proposal Receipt

Checklist)

4 N/A Item 15 Instructions to Offerors indicates that Cost/Fee/Price information should not be included in the Executive Summary, yet the Checklist suggests it is required; will the government please specify in which Volume(s) Cost/Fee/Price Information should be included?

Cost/Fee/Price information shall be included in Volume IV, Price and Volume V, Contract Documentation.

15 Section L, Attachment (Proposal Receipt

Checklist)

6 N/A Item 21 Will the government please specify if Teaming Agreements should be submitted as separate files, consolidated and submitted as a single separate file, or included in one of the proposal volumes?

Offerors shall include a copy of the joint venture partnership agreement as an attachment to Volume V.

16 Section L, Attachment (Proposal Receipt

Checklist)

7 N/A Item 22 Solicitation No. FA8604‐18‐R‐1001 does not direct the Offeror to name or provide resumes of key personnel for the program or task orders, yet the checklist indicates that this is covered in Section L.3.1; will the government please indicate whether or not key personnel should be named and / or if resumes should be included with the proposal submission?

Key personnel are not required to be named nor should resumes be included with proposal submission. The Proposal Receipt Checklist has been modified to reflect this.

17 Section L, Attachment (Proposal Receipt

Checklist)

7 N/A Item 24 Will the government please specify/define the level of detail required for the WBS? A WBS is not required for this effort. The Proposal Receipt Checklist has been modified to reflect this.

18 Section L, Attachment (Proposal Receipt

Checklist)

Pages 8‐9 N/A Item 25 / 7 Solicitation No. FA8604‐18‐R‐1001 does not direct the Offeror to name or provide resumes of key personnel for the program or task orders, yet the checklist indicates that a letter of commitment is required for each key personnel; will the government please specify any and all requirements related to key personnel?

Key personnel are not required to be named nor should resumes be included with proposal submission. The Proposal Receipt Checklist has been modified to reflect this.

19 Section M Pages 5‐6 of

2.2.2 MOM 1: a‐h Solicitation No. FA8604‐18‐R‐1001, Section M indicates that subfactor two will be evaluated against two MoMs. MoM 1 requires offerors to demonstrate thorough understanding of and ability to execute the items a ‐ h. Yet, in FA8604‐18‐R‐1002, Section 1.3, additional functional areas are included (i.e. Interaction with CITO, Managining Rooms, ERM). Will the government please confirm that the Section M list is correct?

Section M is correct.

20 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

6 1.3.4.23 N/A PWS No. FA8604‐18‐R‐1002, item 1.3.4.23 states that the Offeror is reponsible for all organizational mobile devices. Appendix D to FA8604‐18‐R‐1002 PWS lists 100 laptops and 1 aircard. Will the government please confirm that these are all of the mobile devices to be considered?

AFLCMC/PK PWS has been updated to reflect the current operating environment in Appendix D.

21 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

13 1.3.9 1.3.9.1.4 The item number is crossed out, but the description is not. Does the government intend for the Offeror to consider this as within scope?

The offeror shall consider this effort as in scope. R1002 ‐ Atch 01 AFLCMC PK Unique IT Support PWS has been revised to remove the strike through.

22 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

13 1.3.9 1.3.9.1.4 Will the government please specify the number of SharePoint sites that the contractor will be required to develop, maintain, and/or administer concurrently and over the entire PoP?

There are three (3) SharePoint site collections with approximately 30 active substantial sites.

None currently using custom code.

23 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

16 1.3.13 1.3.13.1 Will the government please specify all software and/or applications supported under this contract?

This information is provided in Appendix D of FA8604‐18‐R‐1002 Performance Work Statement.

24 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

25 1.6 1.6.6 When is the OCI mitigation plan due? The CDRL specifies as required.

25 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

28 2.1 SS‐7 Items 1.3.7.2 and 1.3.7.3 are identified, but the corresponding sections in the PWS are struck‐ through. Will the government please indicate which document is correct and/or specify its intent?

R1002 ‐ Atch 01 AFLCMC PK Unique IT Support PWS has been revised to reflect Items 1.3.7.2 and 1.3.7.3 as struck through in SS‐7.

26 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

36 5.3 1 Location of work is specified as AFLCMC locations, and at various contractor, subcontractor, and USAF facilities, yet Appendix D only calls out Bldgs 14 and 16 at WPAFB. Further, 5.3 points to paragraph 1.2, but paragraph 1.2 is silent on location. Will the government please specify where services for FA8604‐18‐R‐1002 will be performed and what travel may be required?

Services for FA8604‐18‐R‐1002 will be performed at WPAFB. Travel may be required, for example to attend a unique training, but no travel is anticipated at this time.

27 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1002, Appendix D

46 D.2 2 Are the 37 Access databases all specific to the ConWrite application or are other applications included among these?

There are 3 small, multi‐user (~3‐4 users) Access databases requiring support, including adding and maintaining VBA. The remainder are ConWrite application databases using Access.

Number Document Page Section No. Paragraph Question Answer:

28 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1002, Appendix D 46 D.2 3 Is the Contractor responsible for providing the same services for the training environment databases? If so, will the government, please provide specific details related to these databases similar to that provided for the single 2008 R12 ConWrite database? For example, how many databases exist; where are they located; what are the sizes; what is the frequency of use; is there an associated application like ConWrite; and what is the volume of users?

Yes, the contractor is responsible for providing the same services for the training environment databases. There are only two training databases and they are stored in the same share as the production databases mentioned in the answer to Question 27 above.

Most databases are less than 1GB in size and most databases have less than 50 users.

29 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1002, Appendix D

46 D.2 4 Is the Contractor responsible for providing the same services for the SharePoint site? If so, will the government, please provide specific details related to the site and databases similar to that provided for the single 2008 R12 ConWrite database? For example, how many databases exist; where are they located; what are the sizes; what is the frequency of use; is there an associated application like ConWrite; and what is the volume of users?

The SharePoint support is from a front‐end perspective, and the PWS does not require SharePoint server support. As such, there are no databases or applications associated with the requested SharePoint support outside of SharePoint being used as a storage and access location for support documentation for other systems.

30 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1002, Appendix D

46 D.2 2 The government indicates that there are 1000 daily users of the ConWrite application;

however, the table at D.4 on the same page indicates only 276 users. Will the government please specify how many users exist, frequency of use, and user locations?

The two user sets are distinct. This TO provides direct support to ~ 321 AFLCMC/PK‐PZ staff users. However, the ConWrite application is also used by personnel outside of AFLCMC/PK‐ PZ staff; this task order does not support those users. The 1000 daily user number is provided to inform offerors of the scope of the ConWrite application only and includes both the 321 directly supported staff and ~700 non‐supported users.

31 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1002, Appendix D

47 D.5 Table Where are the SharePoint and Training databases located? The training databases are co‐located with our production databases on the same 2008 server at WPAFB (Exception of one, smaller site collection hosted out of Scott AFB).

32 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1002, Appendix D

47 D.8 Table Should the 2nd column of the Table be headed as PK/PZ, instead of DL? Yes, the second column should reflect PK rather than WL.

33 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1002, Appendix D

N/A N/A N/A Will the government indicate who the incumbent contractor is on this Task Order or if the government was executing these services itself? If an incumbent Task Order, will the government please provide the contract number / Task Order number?

The incumbent contractors are KNWEBS, LLC (FA8604‐11‐D‐7452), Array Information Technology (FA8604‐11‐D‐7453), and Solutions Through Innovative Technologies, Inc.

(FA8604‐11‐D‐7454).

34 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1002, Appendix D

46 ‐ 47 D.1 ‐ D.8 N/A The data in Appendix D appears to be from 2015. Will the government please provide specific or general updates on any of the information provided re: hardware, databases, applications, users, locations, . . . And/or indicate if there were any changes that would effect labor assignments / time estimates and/or related?

AFLCMC/PK PWS has been updated to reflect the current operating environment in Appendix D.

35 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1002, DD FORM 1423

(CDRLs)

N/A CDRLs 1‐10 N/A Should box E on each of the CRDL sheets indicate FA8604‐18‐R‐1002? Yes, Box E on each of the CDRLs for FA8604‐18‐R‐1002 should indicate FA8604‐18‐R‐1002.

36 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1002, DD FORM 1155

2 of 11 Section B Item 0001 Does the government have a predefined time for transition or is the establishment of a transition period at the discretion of the Offeror/Contractor?

The government does not have a predetermined time for transition yet.

37 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1002, DD FORM 1155

4 of 11 Section B Item 1001 The description indicates a transition period; is a transition period required in the Option Year 1 or any years other than the base year?

The transition period applies only to circumstances specified in paragraph 5.11 of the Performance Work Statement.

38 PWS ‐ CDRLs N/A CDRLs 1‐10 N/A CDRLs 1 and 4 each indicate a monthly requirement. The remaining 8 reflect "AS REQ" in the Frequency field. Would the government provide estimates related to how frequently each of these would be required for the three task orders?

Due to the nature of the CDRL requirements, the government cannot accurately predict the frequency of these deliverables.

39 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

25 CDRL 4 & PWS

1.5.6

1.5.6 Does the provision of CDRL 4 meet the requirements of PWS 1.5.6 (eCMRA)? No, the provision of CDRL A0004 does not meet the requirements of eCMRA.

40 PWS ‐ Services Summary

SS‐1 N/A N/A SS1 indicates the requirement to use an approved system. Would SharePoint be an authorized system used to represent this performance? Would MS Project be approved?

Offeror will report on projects utilizing the government POC approved tool for that Task Order, such as SharePoint or Microsoft Projected, as approved by the COR for that Task Order.

41 PWS ‐ Services Summary

SS‐2 N/A N/A Bullet 5 calls for he "Provision of a Helpdesk". Would we be using the AFLCMC Remedy System for this activity?

Offerors may be using Remedy or a system unique to the specific organization on that task order.

42 PWS ‐ Services Summary

SS7 & SS17 N/A N/A These two summaries indicate the requirement to maintain system availability at 97% or higher. Would the government please share with the responders which infrastructure and network management tools are in place to help with the availability measure?

Network Management Tools may vary by organization and are irrelevant and unnecessary to properly address these service summary items.

Number Document Page Section No. Paragraph Question Answer:

43 PWS ‐ Services

Summary Through out the Service Summary threshold reqmts

N/A N/A Many of the Threshold statements indicate "the specified suspense." Would the government provide a few examples of the "specified suspense" for a few of the specific tasks?

The specified suspense will vary by task and are therefore unknown at this time.

44 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1001, Attachment 17

Labor Category Definition

N/A N/A Are the labor category requirements specified in the Solicitation document the same as incumbent contractors are required to provide today?

In other words, would all incumbent personnel meet the educational background of their specific labor category and would they meet the IAM/IAT specification?

The labor categories included in this solicitation are based on historical staffing and are the Government's best estimate to accomplish the required tasks. The education background of incumbent personnel is irrelevant.

45 ITO N/A 4.3.3 Recent and Relevant Contracts

1 Section L states, "Recent is defined as an ongoing effort of at least six (6) months or an effort comleted witin three (3) years of the date of the issuance of this solicitation.

Will the Government consider moving the timeline to proposal due date vs. “date of issuance of this solicitation”?

No, the government will not move the date.

46 No Specific Section N/A N/A N/A Can the Government please provide the following information regarding each of the three task orders (001, 002, and 003):

o Incumbent Contractor o Incumbent Contract Number o Incumbent Contract Value

Are all of the FTE slots listed in the historical workload for each task order currently filled with incumbent staff?

The incumbent contractors are KNWEBS, LLC (FA8604‐11‐D‐7452), Array Information Technology (FA8604‐11‐D‐7453), and Solutions Through Innovative Technologies, Inc.

(FA8604‐11‐D‐7454).

The FTE slots listed in the historical workload for each task order are estimates of the operating environment and is provided as a guideline.

47 PWS for AFLCMC/PK Unique IT Support

N/A D.4 ‐ D.6 charts The historical workload provided for Task Order 002 is from FY15. Given that we are now in FY18, can the Government please provide more recent historical workload data? If not, can the Government provide a year‐to‐year trend analysis between FY15 and FY18?

AFLCMC/PK PWS has been updated to reflect the current operating environment in Appendix D.

48 SF33 N/A Item 12 N/A Item 12 of the SF33 states an acceptance period of 365 calendar days from date of recept of offers. The ITO requires that offerors make their proposals valid for 180 days. Which is the correct validity period?

Proposals shall have an acceptance period of 365 days. Section L has been revised to remove conflicting language.

49 Section I ‐ Contract Clauses

N/A A FAR 52.204‐04 Are proposal submissions required to be on Postconsumer Fiber Content Paper? The Contractor is required to submit paper documents, such as offers, letters, or reports that are printed or copied double‐sided on paper containing at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber, whenever practicable, when not using electronic commerce methods to submit information or data to the Government.

50 Section L and M 1001 WBS, Paragraph

2.0 Services

Summary, L4.2.4.1 and M2.2.1

N/A In the requirements of the proposal, both section L and M, the government has requested us to write about "Maintaining Service Levels". In the requirements of the proposal, both section L and M, the government has requested us to write about "Maintaining Service Levels". In the Services Summary, there is reference to "performance thresholds". Are they the same requirement? In this case does Service Levels = Performance Thresholds?

Maintaining service levels in Section L and M refers to Subfactor 1, Program Management Approach. Performance levels/thresholds in the Services Summary are specific to the actual tasks in the Performance Work Statement.

51 Work Breakdown Structure

28 Services Summary Paragraph 2.0 Are the Performance Thresholds depicted in the Services Summary the same performance thresholds being managed and delivered by the AFLCMC incumbent contractors for this work?

This information is irrelevant.

52 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1003, DD FORM 1423

(CDRLs)

N/A CDRLs 1‐10 N/A Should box E on each of the CRDL sheets indicate FA8604‐18‐R‐1003? Yes, box E on each of the CRDL sheets indicate FA8604‐18‐R‐1003 for FA8604‐18‐R‐1003.

53 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

1004, DD FORM 1423

(CDRLs)

N/A CDRLs 1‐10 N/A Should box E on each of the CRDL sheets indicate FA8604‐18‐R‐1004? Yes, box E on each of the CRDL sheets indicate FA8604‐18‐R‐1004 for FA8604‐18‐R‐1004.

54 PWS ‐ FA8604‐18‐R‐

9 1.3.7 1.3.7.2 Will the government please provide details on the VTC equipment to ensure appropriate certifications?

The VTC equipment can vary/change both by task order and within a task order, and cannot be further defined.

55 PWS for AFLCMC/PK Unique IT Support

46‐47 D.4 ‐ D.6 charts For the historical manning statistics provided, do those represent actual headcount working on contract, or are there staffing vacancies included within that figure?

The historical workload provided is an estimate of the operating and is provided as a guideline.

56 PWS for AFLCMC/WI Unique IT Support

49‐50 D.4 ‐ D.6 charts The historical workload provided for Task Order 002 is from FY15. Given that we are now in FY18, can the Government please provide more recent historical workload data? If not, can the Government provide a year‐to‐year trend analysis between FY15 and FY18?

The historical workload for AFLCMC/WI, Task Order FA8604‐18‐R‐1003, has been updated to reflect the current operating environment.

57 PWS for AFLCMC/WI Unique IT Support

49‐50 D.4 ‐ D.6 charts For the historical manning statistics provided, do those represent actual headcount working on contract, or are there staffing vacancies included within that figure?

The historical workload provided is an estimate of the operating and is provided as a guideline.

58 PWS for AFLCMC/WL Unique IT Support

49 D.4 ‐ D.6 charts The historical workload provided for Task Order 002 is from FY15. Given that we are now in FY18, can the Government please provide more recent historical workload data? If not, can the Government provide a year‐to‐year trend analysis between FY15 and FY18?

Appendix D reflects the most current estimate.

Number Document Page Section No. Paragraph Question Answer:

59 PWS for AFLCMC/WL

Unique IT Support 49 D.4 ‐ D.6 charts For the historical manning statistics provided, do those represent actual headcount working on contract, or are there staffing vacancies included within that figure?

The historical manning estimates provided are an estimate of the operating and is provided as a guideline.

60 ITO 9 4.2.4 Subfctor 2‐4 A) Given the repetitive category requirements for each Task Order (i.e. Project Management, Customer Support and Helpdesk Interaction, etc.) and "master" PWS for each of the 3 Task Orders, can the Government please provide more specific information about each of the three organizations (PK, WI, WL) and their specific contract missions, objectives and challenges so that Offerors can better customize proposal content for each, rather than offering a repetitive response for Subfactors 2‐4?

B) Or, does the Government desire repetitive responses for Subfactors 2‐4?

The offerors shall respond to the solicitation as written.

61 Section M 4 2.2 1 Will there be a single evaluation team that reviews/evaluates all subfactors, or will each organization have a team to review and evaluate the Subfactor response for support of its organization. For example, will a single evaluation team review responses for PK, WI and WL? Or will PK have its own evaluation team to review Subfactor 2 (AFLCMC/PK), WI with its own evaluation team to review Subfactor 3 (AFLCMC/WI), etc.?

This information is considered source selection sensitive and will not be provided.

62 PWS for AFLCMC/WI Unique IT Support

9 1.3.7 N/A How many distinct VTC systems and conference rooms exist that the Contractor is required to support?

There are three systems that are used; PolyCom, Cisco, and GVS. All three platforms are on both NIPR and SIPR. We have 11 NIPR, 4 Secure rooms, and 2 SIPR VTC Conference rooms.

63 PWS for AFLCMC/WI Unique IT Support

9 1.3.7 4 How many simultaneous VTC conferences is the Contractor required to support? Historically, support was required for up to three VTCs simultaneously.

64 PWS for AFLCMC/WI Unique IT Support

9 1.3.7 N/A Are VTC support technicians required to remain in the room, or be otherwise dedicated to supporting a single VTC conference while in session? If yes, what percentage of VTC conferences required this dedicated stand‐by support?

Yes, VTC support technicians are required to remain in the room if the WI Director is in the conference. If the WI Director is not in the conference, VTC support technicians must be available by cell phone support. All (100 %) of VTC conferences require either in room or standby support via government provided cell phone.

65 PWS for AFLCMC/WI Unique IT Support

9 1.3.7 1.3.7.3 Are WI users required to schedule VTCs through the Contractor VTC tech, or is scheduling assistance from the Contractor infrequent?

Yes, WI users are required to submit paperwork via WI VTC mailbox/SharePoint and VTC tech schedules all VTCs.

66 PWS for AFLCMC/WI Unique IT Support

9 N/A N/A Is the Contractor responsible for providing user access to VTC rooms for meeting attendees (locking and unlocking doors)?

No.

67 PWS for AFLCMC/WL Unique IT Support

9 1.3.7 N/A How many distinct VTC systems and conference rooms exist that the Contractor is required to support?

There are 18 distinct VTC Capable rooms in AFLCMC/WL.

68 PWS for AFLCMC/WL Unique IT Support

9 1.3.7 N/A How many simultaneous VTC conferences is the Contractor required to support? For AFLCMC/WL, the Contractor is required to support up to five VTC Conferences per day, but the average is no more than two per day.

69 PWS for AFLCMC/WL Unique IT Support

9 1.3.7 N/A Are VTC support technicians required to remain in the room, or be otherwise dedicated to supporting a single VTC conference while in session? If yes, what percentage of VTC conferences required this dedicated stand‐by support?

VTC support technician(s) are not required to remain in the room. VTC support technician(s) will remotely monitor multiple meetings and VTCs from their assigned desk using software tools.

70 PWS for AFLCMC/WI Unique IT Support

33 4.1 N/A Does the incumbent contractor use a vehicle to provide support today? If so, how many vehicles?

The government does not provide a vehicle.

71 No Particular Section N/A N/A N/A How can we highlight that our experience best matches the “Unique” aspect they are looking for. The Air Force went out of its way to label this as Unique being “other than Core.”

Unique is simply a "designation" for work not covered by the base operating support efforts through the 88th CG. "Unique" support is defined and outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

72 N/A N/A N/A N/A The announcement and Section L statement that “This effort is a 100% certified 8(a) small business set aside.” Please confirm that this applies only to the prime contractor, and not to prime and subcontractors.

Yes, that is accurate.

73 N/A N/A N/A N/A The FBO posting for this solicitation states the submission date for questions is February 1, 2018. However, the RFP states questions or requests be submitted within 10 days of the RFP release date, that is January 29 (presuming we count the weekends). Can you please confirm the last date to submit questions?

The last date to submit questions was 1 February 2018.

74 N/A N/A N/A N/A FedBizOpps has the subject recompete opportunity as in Presoliciation. GovWin has the RFP being dropped on January 19th.

The AFLCMC Unique IT Support solicitation was posted to FBO 19 January 2018 under Solicitation Number FA8604‐18‐R‐1001.

75 N/A N/A N/A N/A Can you clarify the difference if any of the Jan 19, 2018 posting of the Unique IT support effort FA8604‐18‐R‐1001 and the Jan 23, 2018 posting of the Unique IT support effort

FA8604‐17‐2001?

Solicitation Number FA8604‐17‐R‐2001 is a PRE SOLICIATION NOTICE that states “This is a Draft of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Air Force Lifecycle Management Center (AFLCMC) Unique Information Technology Support effort. The Performance Work Statements (PWSs), Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs), Model Contracts, and other associated documents are attached to this announcement….”

Solicitation Number FA8604‐18‐R‐1001 is a COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION NOTICE that states “This is a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Air Force Lifecycle Management Center (AFLCMC) Unique Information Technology Support effort. The Performance Work Statements (PWSs), Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs), Model Contracts, and any other associated documents are attached to this announcement….”

Number Document Page Section No. Paragraph Question Answer:

76 N/A N/A N/A N/A According to the instructions listed for downloading the PPI tool, the tool link (ppi tool.accdb) can be found within the “All Files” column under the solicitation’s “Notice Details” tab on FBO.gov—however the link described to download and access the tool does not seem to be listed anywhere under the “All Files” column or on the solicitation page.

Could you please add the link to the solicitation page, or direct me to where I can find it?

The solicitation was revised 26 January 2018 to include the ppi_tool.accdb attachment.

77 N/A N/A N/A N/A I have searched the All Files area of the Notice Details Tab on Solicitation Number FA8604‐18‐ R‐1001 and am unable to locate the ppitool link described in R1001_ATCH_06_‐ _Sect_L_Atch_2_‐_PPI_Tool_Instructions.pdf delivered with the final solicitation.

Could you verify the link is visible to venders or send me a direct download link?

The solicitation was revised 26 January 2018 to include the ppi_tool.accdb attachment.

78 N/A N/A N/A N/A In following the provided instructions, I was also unable to locate the PPI Tool in the links provided under the All Files column. I am inquiring to confirm if the link is missing or if I am just overlooking it?

The solicitation was revised 26 January 2018 to include the ppi_tool.accdb attachment.

79 N/A N/A N/A N/A I have noticed a few discrepancies as far as the updates on FBO and Govwin compared to the actual solicitation for AFLCMC. On page 3 of section L it states that "It is encouraged that any such questions or requests be submitted within 10 days of the RFP release date." FBO and Govwin both say that questions are due by February 1, however if you were to count the weekends it would be January 29. Can you confirm which date the questions are actually due?

The last date to submit questions was 1 February 2018.

80 N/A N/A N/A N/A It says the past performance volume due on February 26 on GovWin and FBO however in the RFP in the instructions section L it says "Past performance volume is to be included with all other volumes for submission" Can the government please clarify this.

The Past Performance Volume Is due 26 February 2018.

81 N/A N/A N/A N/A The RFP (FA8604‐18‐R‐1001), AFLCMC Unique IT Support, requires the contractor to hold a top secret facilities clearance. We hold a DOE Q Clearance. A Q level investigation is the DOE version of an SSBI. I know that the DOD does have reciprocity with DOE. Would this fulfil the RFP requirement if we provide verification of our Q clearance? Will you still accept this?

A DoD top secret facilities clearance is required. A DOE Q Clearance will not fulfil the RFP Requirement.

82 Section M 1.2 SF 33 Block 20

N/A N/A N/A 1. How will the $75M contract limit be applied? Is it:

(a) a single aggregate limit on task orders that can be awarded under the contract, such that a single offeror could receive task orders in the amount of $75M (if no task orders were allocated to any other offeror);

(b) an amount that will be sub‐allocated across successful offerors at the time of award, with each offeror limited to task orders not exceeding its sub‐allocation; or

(c) will each successful contractor have an $75M limit, such that the total value of task orders issued under the contract could exceed $75M ?

The $75M contract ceiling cannot be exceeded by the aggregate total of all task orders, regardless of the offeror(s). The $75M contract ceiling is a "shared ceiling" amongst the awardees.

83 IDIQ, PK, WI and WL

PWS:

1.3.2 through 1.3.18

Section L 4.2.4.2 Subfactor 2; 4.2.4.3

Subfactor 3; Subfactor 4 4.2.4.4;

Section M 2.2.2 Subfactor 2; 2.2.3 Subfactor 3; 2.2.4

Subfactor 4

N/A N/A N/A 2. Where identical information responds to more than one section of the RFP, must it be repeated verbatim, or can it be incorporated by reference after the first time it is stated?

Multiple sections of the RFP are similar, and offerors may wish to provide identical information in multiple sections of their response. Because of page limits, all offerors should follow the same format in this regard.

Cross‐referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

84 Section L 4.2.4.4 Subfactor 4

AFLCMC/WL PWS 1.3.6

N/A N/A N/A 3. Section L instructions listed 4.2.4.4 Communication Security (COMSEC) Support as a requirement, however PWS Reference 1.3.6 Communication Security (COMSEC) Support and its subsections are crossed out (1.3.6.1 through 1.3.6.8). Please clarify.

AFLCMC/WL PWS is correct, Communication Security (COMSEC) Support is not a requirement. Section L and Section M have been revised to remove the conflict.

85 1.3.10 / PK

1.3.10 / WI

N/A N/A Support for Maintaining Rooms has information in the PWS

It is not listed in the Measure for Merit in Section M or Section L That is correct.

Number Document Page Section No. Paragraph Question Answer:

86 1.3.16 / PK

1.3.16 / WI

1.3.16 / WL

N/A N/A Electronic Records as defined in the

PWS

It is not listed in the Measure for Merit in Section M or Section L That is correct.

87 1.3.4.7 / WL N/A N/A The sentence ends with ‘compliance with’, everything else is deleted

Is there a mistake or are there compliance measures The AFLCMC/WL Performance Work Statement has been revised to remove strikethroughs.

88 1.3.6 / WL N/A N/A The entire section in the PWS is deleted

This section remains in Sections L and M AFLCMC/WL PWS is correct, Communication Security (COMSEC) Support is not a requirement. Section L and Section M have been revised to remove the conflict.

89 1.3.9 / WL N/A N/A The entire section in the PWS is deleted

This section remains in Sections L and M AFLCMC/WL PWS is correct, GOTS Application and Environment Maintenance is not a requirement. Section L and Section M do not reflect the OTS Application and Environment Maintenance requirement for AFLCMC/WL.

90 1.3.19 / PK

1.3.19 / WL

1.3.19 / WI

N/A N/A Meetings section defined in PWS It is not listed in the Measure for Merit in Section L or Section M That is correct.

91 Pricing N/A N/A The final RFP included a pricing table asking for Direct Labor Rates and Fully Burdened Labor Rates.

Since the Task orders are shown to be FFP, why do we need to supply direct labor rates? Direct Labor rates will be utilized in the Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees to ensure realism of prices.

92 Pricing N/A N/A N/A If we use subcontractors as part of our overall proposed solution, are we to seek sealed cost packets disclosing cost data to be shared directly with the CO given the need for Direct Labor Rates in the pricing schedules?

Direct labor rates (unburdened) are required for all proposed rates (prime and subcontractors) as one part of the pricing submission. These pricing instructions are provided in the RFP. How this data is provided when complying with the instructions in the RFP is up to the Prime and their Subcontractor.

93 Pricing N/A N/A There are two additional Skill Code Categories added with the latest modification to the RFP, but the PWS’s for PK, WI and WL are unchanged.

Is this new capability being sought that has not been supplied (or priced) thus far? The two additional Labor Categories reflect levels of effort historically not found on the initial task orders, but have been utilized on subsequent task order awards and give the government greater flexibility for more complex requirements in the future. It is up to the Offeror to determine the appropriate labor categories and mix of labor categories necessary to meet the requirements.

94 1.3.16 WL

1.3.16 WI

1.3.16 PK

N/A N/A Records Management compliance in each of the PWSs References AFMAN 33‐363 dated 01 March 2008. The latest AFMAN 33‐363 dated 2 June 2017 eliminates the RC, COR and

FARM positions that are referenced in the PWS and mandates a system called AFRIMS for all records management.

Does the newer AFMAN Memorandum apply?

Here is the link to the AFMAN Directive http://static.e‐ publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/publication/afman33‐363/afman33‐363.pdf

Yes, the newer AFMAN Memorandum applies.

95 N/A N/A N/A N/A How many legacy systems are expected to be migrated to cloud platforms? Unknown at this time.

96 N/A N/A N/A N/A Currently what is the progress of Virtualization efforts for desk tops? Not Applicable. No reference was provided to determine the source of your question.

97 R1001_Atch_04_‐ _Sect_L_‐

_Instructions,_Conditio ns,_and_Notices_to_Off erors_14Nov2017

6 Section 3.8 Binding and Labeling

N/A According to Section 3.8 of R1001 Attachment 4, “Volumes I, II and III shall be contained in one (1) binder and Volumes IV and V shall be contained in one (1) binder.” However, Volumes I and II are due on 05 March and Volume III is due on 26 February.

Could the Government please clarify that it wants Volume III bound in one binder and delivered on 26 February; Volumes I and II bound in one binder and delivered on 05 March;

and Volume IV and V bound in one binder and delivered on 05 March

The solicitation was revised 26 January 2018 to clarify volume submittals.

98 R1001_Atch_14_‐ _Proposal_Receipt_Che cklist_14Nov_2017.pdf

R1001_Atch_04_‐ _Sect_L_‐

_Instructions,_Conditio n,_and_Notices_to_Off erors_14Nov2017. pdf

N/A N/A N/A R1001 Attachment 14, Proposal Receipt Checklist, conflicts with the instructions outlined in R1001, Attachment 4, Section L. For example, the Proposal Receipt Checklist only reflects three volumes (Volume I Offer and Other Document; Volume II – Technical Proposal; and Volume III – Cost and Fee Proposal), while Section L instructs the Offeror to outline the proposal response in five volumes.

Can the Government update Attachment 14?

The Proposal Receipt Checklist has been modified to remove conflicting information.

Number Document Page Section No. Paragraph Question Answer:

99 R1001_Atch_04_‐

_Sect_L_‐ _Instructions,_Conditio ns,_and_Notices_to_Off erors_14Nov2017

R1004_Atch_01_AFLCM C_WL_Unique_IT_PWS_

28Dec17.pdf

10 Section 4.2.4.4 Subfactor 4:

AFLCMC/W L

Performance

Work Statement a(4)

N/A Task 1.3.6 Communication Security (COMSEC) Support is crossed out and/or excluded from R1004_Atch_01_AFLCMC_WL_Unique_I T_PWS_28Dec17.pdf, but Offerors are still instructed to address the task in Subfactor 4 of the Technical Volume. Can the Government clarify that there is no requirement for Task 1.3.6 support in the AFLCMC/WL PWS, and therefore the Offeror should not address it in Subfactor 4?

AFLCMC/WL PWS is correct, Communication Security (COMSEC) Support is not a requirement. Section L and Section M have been revised to remove the conflict.

100 R1002_Atch_01_AFLCM C_PK_Unique_IT_PWS_

28Dec17.pdf

R1003_Atch_01_AFLCM C_WI_Unique_IT_PWS_

28Dec17.pdf

R1004_Atch_01_AFLCM C_WL_Unique_IT_PWS_

28Dec17.pdf

PK – 1, 53

WI – 1, 37

WL – 1, 37

Section 1.2 Scope

Section 5.3 Location of Work

N/A Can the Government please clarify the Location of Work, including secondary locations, for each Task Order?

The location of work for all Task Orders is Wright Patterson AFB.

101 R1001_Atch_04_‐ _Sect_L_‐

_Instructions,_Conditio ns,_and_Notices_to_Off erors_14Nov2017

5 Section 3.3 Page Size and Format

N/A Attachment 4, Section 3.3, instructs: “Pages shall be single‐spaced with a double space between paragraphs.” We request that the Government adjust the formatting requirements to a single space between paragraphs.

No, the government will not adjust the requirement.

102 R1001_Atch_12_‐ _Sect_M_‐

_Evaluation_Factors_for _Award.pdf

4 Section 2.2.2

AFLCMC/PK

Performance

Work Statement

N/A Tasks 1.3.10 and 1.3.16 has work to be performed outlined in the requirements of the AFLCMC/PK Performance Work Statement, but they are not included as evaluation criteria under Section 2.2.2 in Attachment 12. Which Tasks outlined in the PK PWS will be evaluated?

That is correct. See Section M for evaluation criteria.

103 R1001_Atch_12_‐ _Sect_M_‐

_Evaluation_Factors_for _Award.pdf

5 Section 2.2.3

AFLCMC/WI

Performance

Work Statement

N/A Task 1.3.16 has work to be performed outlined in the requirements of the AFLCMC/WI Performance Work Statement, but it is not included as evaluation criteria under Section 2.2.3 in Attachment 12. Which Tasks outlined in the WI PWS will be evaluated?

That is correct. See Section M for evaluation criteria.

104 FA8604‐18‐R‐1001

IDIQ_RFP, Pg 26, Section I.

N/A N/A N/A The government has incorporated FAR 52.222‐58, Subcontractor Responsibility Matters Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673) into the solicitation however at this time this clause is pending injunction and the Government’s decision to halt implementation of FPSW. As such, we are request the removal of this clause until such a time in which the injunction is removed.

FAR 52.222‐58 has been removed from the solicitation.

105 FA8604‐18‐R‐1001

IDIQ_RFP, Pg K‐16, Section K.

N/A N/A N/A The government has incorporated FAR 52.222‐57, Representation Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673) into the solicitation however at this time this clause is pending injunction and the Government’s decision to halt implementation of FPSW. As such, we request the removal of this clause until such a time in which the injunction is removed.

FAR 52.222‐57 has been removed from the solicitation.

106 Ref: FA8604‐18‐R‐1001 IDIQ_RFP, Pg 26, Section I

N/A N/A N/A The government has incorporated FAR 52.222‐59, Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673) into the solicitation however at this time this clause is pending injunction and the Government’s decision to halt implementation of FPSW. As such, we request the removal of this clause until such a time in which the injunction is removed.

52.222‐59 has been removed from the solicitation.

107 Ref:R1002, R1003, R1004, Performance Work Statement, Section 2.0 Services Summary

N/A N/A N/A This section provides a Services Summary with performance thresholds. Please advise how meeting, not meeting, or exceeding such thresholds will be addressed (for example, via CPAR ratings).

Performance issues/metrics will be included in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). Possible remedies include negative reports in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Contract Action Reports (CAR), decreases of the invoice amount in relation to performance, and termination. This list is not necessarily all inclusive.

108 Ref: R1003 Performance Work Statement, page 20, Section 1.3.14.

N/A N/A N/A This section notes foreign military sales requirements, however PWS Sections 1.2 and 5.3 do not seem to identify the foreign entity for whom this work will be provided. Please clarify the location of the foreign military sale in support of this effort.

Offerors shall provide support from WPAFB and provide hardware and support similar to a TDY status if user is OCONUS.

Number Document Page Section No. Paragraph Question Answer:

109 N/A N/A N/A N/A The IDIQ contract incorporates the Service Contract Act (SCA) into the opportunity, and

Orders R1002, R1003, R1004 incorporate all IDIQ clauses by reference.

Please confirm whether SCA applies to R1002, R1003, and R1004. If applicable, can the government provide the associated SCA Wage Determination for these orders to ensure compliance?

The Service Contract Act (SCA) does not apply to this effort.

110 N/A N/A N/A N/A General Question: Please confirm progress payments are applicable to orders R1002, R1003, are R1004.

Traditional progress payments are not applicable to orders, however, level billing is applicable.

111 Ref. R1001_‐_Sect_L;

page 10; Section

4.2.4.4.

N/A N/A N/A Item 4 indicates Communication Security (COMSEC) support as a required element in the Offeror's technical approach. However, a review of the PWS for AFLCMC/WL shows that Section 1.3.6 on COMSEC is stricken in its entirety. Can the government please clarify?

AFLCMC/WL PWS is correct, Communication Security (COMSEC) Support is not a requirement. Section L and Section M have been revised to remove the conflict.

112 N/A N/A N/A N/A Section L (R1001_Atch_04_‐_Sect_L_‐ _Instructions,_Conditions,_and_Notices_to_Offerors_14Nov2017.pdf) paragraph 4.3 Volume III ‐ Past Performance states that:

Each Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing recent, relevant past performance information on contracts which have at least six months of performance.

And paragraph 4.3.3 Recent and Relevant Contracts states that:

Recent is defined as an ongoing effort of at least six (6) months or an effort completed within three (3) years of the date of the issuance of this solicitation.

And Section M (R1001_Atch_12_‐_Sect_M_‐_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf ) paragraph

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment states that:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent.

To be recent, the effort must be ongoing for at least six (6) months and must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Is the cut‐off date for determining six months of performance also the date of issuance of the solicitation? If not, is the cut‐off date for determining six months of performance the proposal due date (5 March 2018) or the past performance information due date (26 February 2018)?

Yes, it is the date of issuance of the solicitation.

113 N/A N/A N/A N/A In Section L (R1001_Atch_04_‐_Sect_L_‐ _Instructions,_Conditions,_and_Notices_to_Offerors_14Nov2017.pdf) paragraph 4.3.1 Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool states that:

This [past performance] information is required of the Offeror and all proposed major subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to performtwenty (sic) (20) percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price.

And paragraph 4.3.3 Recent and Relevant Contracts states that:

In addition, Past Performance Information shall be submitted on a minimum of one (1) contract for each Subcontractor performing 20% or more of the proposed effort.

If submitted in the manner outlined in Section L, will the government accept recent and relevant past performance information from teaming partners performing less than 20 percent of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price?

No.

114 N/A N/A N/A N/A Will the Government consider extending the Past Performance Volume deadline to provide more time to completed and turn in customer surveys?

No, the Past Performance Volume is due 5 March 2018.

115 N/A N/A N/A N/A Are the manning levels provided in each Task Order PWS (PK, WI, and WL) representative of levels at the time of contract start up or current levels to account for the increase in scope?

The historical manning estimates provided are an estimate of the operating environment and is provided as a general guideline.

Number Document Page Section No. Paragraph Question Answer:

116 N/A N/A N/A N/A Reference PWS, section 1.4.3 and the DD254 ‐ Does the contractor have to establish and maintain a SCIF or SAPF at the contractor location or will the Government be providing the facilities?

All work is performed at Wright Patterson AFB in government facilities.

117 N/A N/A N/A N/A PK PWS ‐ Page 47 Table D.8: Can we assume there is a type in the middle column label and that it should should be labeled “For PK” vs. “For WL”?

Yes the middle column label should reflect "For PK." The AFLCMC PK PWS has been modified to reflect this change.

118 N/A N/A N/A N/A For the Pricing Volume, can a GWAC rate schedule be used for the basis of estimate? Rates are determined by the Offeror and must meet the requirements of the Pricing Volume of the solicitation.

119 N/A N/A N/A N/A What is meant by “Did the offeror provide the safety performance data for each performing entity?” in the Proposal Receipt Checklist?

Safety performance data is not required for this effort. The Proposal Receipt Checklist has been modified to reflect this.

120 N/A N/A N/A N/A What is meant by “Did the offeror provide small business performance accomplishments?”

in the Proposal Receipt…