Questions Answers_COMET_RFP Vol 2.pdf

Industry Questions & Government Answers Vol II

COMET (FA8604-21-R-B024)

23 September 2021

26. Questions Attached:

a. Sect L page 9; 4.2.4.6 Subfactor Six: Facility Security System Tasks; 4.2.4.6.1 Facility Security System Tasks). The Solicitation states that:

“The Offeror’s proposal must provide detailed information describing your approach to maintaining the physical access control system (ACS), intrusion detection system (IDS), and Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) system for Collateral and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) facilities. In addition, provide a description of your experience with regard to the following task:

a. Physical Access Control/Intrusion Detection: Maintain, configure & troubleshoot DAQ Starwatch ACS, a separate IDS and CCTV, and various electronics to include a repair capability.

Support migration of current ACS and IDS to Lenel OnGuard. Maintain system documentation, configuration changes, and network layouts in accordance with PWS section 3.1 for Task Order

5. Proposal shall cite one example where the Offeror implemented and maintained the physical ACS, IDS, and CCTV systems for an SCI facility.”

QUESTION/COMMENT: Would the government consider retracting the requirement for specific DAQ Starwatch ACS experience?

JUSTIFICATION: It has come to our attention that if anyone touches DAQ Starwatch who is not certified the warrantee conveyed to the government for their legacy system is voided. The issue at hand is that DAQ Electronics does not certify individual technicians as certified operators/servicers.

DAQ only certifies a select sub-set of companies who are already highly performing VARs and these VARs are carefully parsed according to geographic or customer portfolio exclusively. That translates to mean the current DAQ Starwatch operation and service is relegated to one sole company. This constitutes a bar to competition among small business offerors who otherwise are fluent in other ACS’s.

RECOMMENDATION: The Government require DAQ Electronics to tender most favorable customer value-added re-seller pricing and take steps to certify NASIC COMET awardees as part of contract transition/start-up. In the meantime, strike the language that restricts competition and evaluate responses based upon ACS, IDS, and CCTV expertise/experience agnostic of technology or platform.

ANSWER: NASIC plans to have a new, Lenel-based, ACS/IDS/CCTV in place as early as May of 2023.

Until that time, and possibly after that time during the transition, NASIC physical security will still be operating with the current DAQ Starwatch ACS. Because of the overlap, COMET will be required to provide support for the current and future electronic security systems.

b. SAM.GOV Solicitation Posting “Notice to Offerors: Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available.”

QUESTION: When does NASIC anticipate funding availability from which to announce an award?

ANSWER: Funds will be available in the FY the work will be completed.

c. Section M, page 2; 1.2.2 Award of Subsequent Task Orders states, “Subsequent Task Orders will be competed in accordance with the Fair Opportunities regulations specified in FAR Part 16.” and Sect M Page 1; 1.2.1 Award of Initial Task Orders states “…In the event the Government determines to award to more than four Offerors, any additional awardees will be awarded a task order beyond the originally evaluated five and meeting the minimum order amount required.”

QUESTION: Please clarify if only original awardees will be permitted to bid on Task Orders (TOs) beyond 1 through 5 or if the intent is to qualify additional awardees who will not be tasked with TOs 1 through 5 but kept in reserve for future requirements consideration only. Additionally, how can the government make awards for unpublished unforeseen future task orders for work not expressed in the PWS, not subject to Section L responses, and therefore unevaluatable in Section M? By what possible criteria would awards beyond the original 4 (or less) offerors be decided and justified?

ANSWER: There will be up to 4 companies awarded the work of the 5 TOs. There are no plans to award any other companies work under this solicitation.

27. Could the Government please confirm when questions regarding the COMET IDIQ (Notice ID Fa8604-21-F-B024) are due?

ANSWER: Questions are due No Later Than 15 October 2021.

28. Questions Attached:

a. RFP Section 1.2. Among the Offerors evaluated as providing the best value to the Government (and thus being awarded basic IDIQ contracts), Task Order 1 will be awarded to the company with the highest rating in Subfactor Two. Task Order 2 will be awarded to the company with the highest rating in Subfactor Three. Task Order 3 will be awarded to the company with the highest rating in Subfactor Four. Task Order 4 will be awarded to the company with the highest rating in Subfactor Five. Task Order 5 will be awarded to the company with the highest rating in Subfactor Six. In the event that multiple Offerors are rated equally in the Subfactor, the first TO will be awarded to the Offeror with the overall best value in the tradeoff decision followed by award of TO’s two through five. In the event the Government determines to award to fewer than four Offerors, award of any Task Orders remaining will revert to the Offeror with the overall best value in the tradeoff decision. In the event the Government determines to award to more than four Offerors, any additional awardees will be awarded a task order beyond the originally evaluated five and meeting the minimum order amount required.

Do we have visibility into the Task Order referenced in 1.2.1?

Has the Govt provided the current baseline of personnel and contract vehicles forming the Foundation of COMET?

ANSWER: I believe this is an excerpt from Section M 1.2.1, I am not sure what RFP 1.2 is. The TOs are available for download from SAM.gov. The requirements for COMET are not the same as the previous contract so the baseline would not be the same.

b. Pricing Volume Questions. The Proposal Labor Price tabs (TO1-TO5) have listed Labor Category in the first column. The sub headings list functional area descriptions, but these are not the same in all cases as the actual Task Order (TO) PWS documents functional area listings, why?

ANSWER: Spreadsheet has been updated

c. Pricing Volume Questions. The Functional area descriptions for TO2, TO3 and TO4 are identical, but the TO PWS descriptions vary by task order, why?

ANSWER: Spreadsheet has been updated

d. Pricing Volume Questions. The “Summary TEP” worksheet instructs offerors to, “Go to each of the three Proposal Labor Price tabs and insert Contractor Labor Category, FTE quantity (# of employees) needed for that labor category within each functional area and the fully burdened hourly labor rate.” However, the pricing template contains six (6) worksheets/tabs for Transition and the five (5) Task Orders. Please confirm offerors are to complete all six worksheets/tabs.

ANSWER: Spreadsheet has been updated

e. Pricing Volume Questions. The “Summary TEP” worksheet instructs offerors that, also in tabs four through six, provide the fully burdened hourly labor rates for years two through five with the assumption that the number of contractors and functional areas will remain the same for each year for each of the three task orders.” Can the Government clarify which tabs are tabs four through six, and which three (of the five) task orders this instruction applies?

ANSWER: Spreadsheet has been updated, tab numbers are counted right to left

f. Pricing Volume Questions. What Government Functional Area does the “Exchange SME” in the “Transition Price (TO 1)” correlate to, so that offerors can assign the correct rate when referring back to the Contractor Labor Rates Summary table?

ANSWER: Spreadsheet has been updated, The SME position is referenced in each TO

g. Pricing Volume Questions. The Government Functional Areas seem to omit many tasks in the Task Order PWSs. For example, within TO 3, 3.1 SC Software Vulnerability Testing, 3.2 SC Cybersecurity Program Support, 3.3 SC Cybersecurity Enterprise Network A&A Support, etc. do not appear to have a readily available corresponding Government Functional Area in the price workbook. Can the Government please provide additional instructions for how offerors should structure pricing to demonstrate that it directly correlates to the PWS tasks, for each Task Order?

ANSWER: Spreadsheet has been updated

h. Pricing Volume Questions. The identifying numbers in the Task Order Labor Categories (Functional Areas) do not appear to correlate to the PWS. For example, in Task Order 02 the first

Labor Category is “3.1 GSP Helpdesk Support”, but the PWS for Task Order 2 lists section 3.1 as “SC Network Administration”. Can the government provide additional instructions to clarify the Labor Category numbering in the pricing template for each Task Order and how they correspond to the numbering of the work to be performed in each Task Order PWS?

ANSWER: Spreadsheet has been updated

i. Pricing Volume Questions. The “Contractor Labor Rates Summary” worksheet includes a column for “Prime/Sub” but the instructions do not specify how this column is used. Are offerors supposed to load the “Contractor Labor Rates Summary” with all possible prime contractor and subcontractor rates, whether they are used in the pricing or not, for incorporation into Schedule J of the prime IDIQ contract?

ANSWER: That column is used to determine if the position is a prime or a subcontracted position.

Yes, all rates that are being put onto contract should be included in the spreadsheet.

j. Pricing Volume Questions. The “Contractor Labor Rates Summary” worksheet includes a column for “Prime/Sub” but the instructions do not specify how this column is used. Is the Government intending to add the subcontractor’s rates into Schedule J of the prime IDIQ contract?

ANSWER: The instructions are to provide the fully burdened labor rate for each entry and then designate if it is a Prime or sub.

k. Pricing Volume Questions. If a labor category rate is interchangeable between the prime and a subcontractor, should the rate be proposed twice, once for the prime and once for the subcontractor, or is proposing the rate at the prime contractor level adequate?

ANSWER: If the rates are different, show the FBLR for each entry.

l. Pricing Volume Questions. Can the contractor insert columns in the Task Order budgets to assign a labor category and FTE quantity to the prime or sub, to more easily correlate the rates in the task orders to the rates in the “Contractor Labor Rates Summary”?

ANSWER: If the same labor categories have different rate, put them on their own row. You can add rows if necessary

m. Questions regarding uploading, editing and PPI responses and confirmation of receipt of the Questionnaire. Understand the requirement is for the client to forward the completed questionnaire to the email stated in the RFP. It is clear that we can confirm the email has been sent by the client. However, without clear receipt and confirmation of delivery from the government, we are unable to confirm that the government has actually received the completed questionnaire within the email. This is critical as without the completed questionnaire, the proposal will be rendered incomplete. To avoid any issues, will the government allow the client to allow the option within outlook to request an automated delivery receipt which would serve as proof of delivery to the COMET Program Office?

ANSWER: The agency can request a confirmation of delivery and the Government will reply.

n. PPI Tool. Within the PPI tool, there are multiple questions that require information such as workshare as part of the submission process. If some of these questions are essentially TBD, will the system allow no answer and still be compliant?

ANSWER: Answer the PPI to the best of company ability and all questions will be reviewed.

o. In previous government RFP processes, to alleviate the last-minute rush to submit required past performance documents, some systems allow the early uploading of documents without actual submission so that changes and corrections can be made. Once the document is fully complete, the document is submitted. Does PPI allow this uploading and editing online prior to submission?

ANSWER: The Government is still researching this question, and will be answered at a later time.

29. Questions Attached:

a. In Section L 4.2.4.3.2.a, PWS items 3.28 and 3.29 for Task Order 2 are listed as support roles under Database and Application Management. Is PWS item 3.24 for Task Order 2, GXS NSANet Systems Data Management Administrator, also considered a role under Database and Application Management and thus be considered in M.2.2.2.3 Measure of Merit 2.i Database and Application Management?

ANSWER: The references should be 3.29 and 3.30 and have been corrected on the section L document.

b. For each of the task order technical subfactors, Section L is requesting a description of experience in “one of the” listed tasks. Will the government afford a higher score to Offerors who effectively exceed this requirement and provide a description of experience to more than one of the listed tasks?

ANSWER: No, the request is for experience in one of the listed tasks.

c. Sect L, 2 General Instructions states “The Offeror shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), and Model Contract. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.” Section L, 4.2.1 states “All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal.” The balance of Section L instructions references responding to a subset of the total set of PWS requirements. Can the government confirm offers do not need to address all PWS requirements in our technical response?

ANSWER: Responses should be based on the requirements in Section L, not the PWS.

d. Sect L 4.2.3.1.2 Management Plan (Personnel), para b requires “Staffing Plan (Résumés for key personnel (including PM and team leads identified in section 11 of all 5 task order Performance Work Statements)…” Can the government confirm that resumes are required for all positions in Section 11 of all 5 task orders listed as “incumbent contractor” positions?

ANSWER: Section L has been changed to reflect just the PM positions are required to supply resumes.

e. Task Order 1, End User Workspace Task Order, Section 11, 60 Day Transition specifies “7 new contractors” but only lists “(5) incumbent contractor” positions. Can the government clarify the 2 additional positions not listed as incumbent staff?

ANSWER: TO has been updated, should reflect 5 SMEs.

f. Task Order 2, Datacenter, Network, and Platform Hosting Task Order, Section 11, 60 Day Transition specifies “17 new contractors” but also states “Seats will not be provided for theses 15 contractor SME’s…” Can the government please clarity the number of new contractor positions?

ANSWER: TO has been updated, should reflect 17 SMEs.

g. Task Order 4, Cloud Services Task Order, Section 11, 60 Day Transition specifies “3 new contractors” but only lists “(2) incumbent contractor” positions. Can the government clarify the 1 additional position not listed as incumbent staff?

ANSWER: TO has been updated, should reflect 2 SMEs.

30. Questions Attached:

a. Is there an incumbent for all 5 TOs? If yes, who is the Incumbent?

ANSWER: The previous contract requirements are not the same as the COMET solicitation. The incumbent is Intrepid Solutions.

b. Is any of the TOs new work?

ANSWER: Previous contract TOs have been restructured so there are changes throughout the contract. There are new requirements on the new contract.

31. Questions Attached:

a. Sect L, 4.3 (page 9-10). Can the offeror provide the PPI content separately from the rest of the Volume III content?

ANSWER: Yes, as long as the PPI information is submitted before the RFP deadline.

b. Sect L, 4.3. As a Small Business Opportunity, will the Government allow the use of up to four Past Performances from critical subcontractors to ensure the Contractor has 100% coverage across all Task Orders and all PWS areas as required for Attachment 8.

ANSWER: Past performance for no more than three relevant contracts can be submitted for the Prime contractor and no more than a total of two for significant and critical subcontractors/partners.

c. Sect M, 4 and Sect L, 5.2.7 (Sect M page 6 & Sect L page 9). The Compensation Plan in Section M offers contractors the option of bidding National Salaries instead of those specific to the three locations. We find that salaries at the three locations are significantly higher than the National Average. Therefore, if the TEP is based on National Salaries it will be artificially low and the contractor will either need supplemental funding during execution to hire and retain staff, or will be unable to staff and / or will have high turnover.

Will the Government consider removing the option to bid National Salaries instead of those specific to the three locations mentioned in the Compensation Plan in Section M?

ANSWER: The Government can’t find the references listed in the question.

32. Questions Attached:

a. TO 1 PWS Section 7.1.2 Personnel Security Clearance Requirements. Contractor shall possess a US Government Top Secret (TS) security clearance and granted access to Sensitive compartmented information (SCI).

Does this include both TS-SCI eligible and active? Eligible being having TS-SCI access within the past 24 months versus Active having access on a current contract?

ANSWER: Contractor must possess an active US Government Top Secret (TS) security clearance and granted access to Sensitive compartmented information (SCI).

b. TO 2 PWS Section 3.17 GSM Bistatics Systems Support. A current (within last 5 years) Counterintelligence Polygraph (CI Poly) will be required

Would the government consider a change to ability to obtain a CI Poly?

ANSWER: No, it is a requirement.

33. Difficulty in locating the software tool PPI as referenced in Section L, Attachment 1. We discovered that the PPI tool referenced in Section L, Attachment 1, is not available within SAM, nor is it available within CPARS. We conferred with both the Technical Support staff at SAM and at CPARS. Our understanding is that PPIRS (Past Performance Information Retrieval System) was incorporated into CPARS as a repository of documentation related to CPARS in 2019.

Given the time constraints within the COMET RFP, we wanted to propose, as an alternative, the use of DoD SAFE in submitting the required Past Performance documentation.

a. The Past Performance Questionnaires are still submitted as directed to a named email address by the client directly.

b. The Past Performance Document from both the prime and subcontractors can be sent via DoD

SAFE.

c. The questions that were to be completed as part of the PPI Application submission process can be requested on a separate additional form and submitted either with the proposal or with the Past performance.

ANSWER: The Past Performance Documentation can be submitted through DoD Safe, but ensure that Sections L & M of the RFP are followed.

34. Questions Attached:

a. Section L.4.2.4.1.2 Management Plan Page 6. Question/Issue: Section L.4.2.4.1.2 Management Plan states that, “Résumés for key personnel (including PM and team leads identified in section 11 of all 5 task order Performance Work Statements”, are required. However, the solicitation does not contain labor category descriptions or qualifications for key personnel except for high-level program manager/lead requirements in sections 5.8.

Recommendation/Remedy: If the Government could, at its earliest convenience, provide labor category descriptions and qualifications for all key personnel as these are required to develop the Price volume.

ANSWER: We do not plan on providing labor categories for each position, the labor cat depends on the experience or the work force. The requirements have changed to only needing to provide PM resumes.

b. Section L.4.2.3.1.2 Management Plan (Personnel), b. Staffing Plan Page 6. Question/Issue: This section describes a Staffing Plan requirement including “FTEs per functional area of each PWS.” The TO PWS documents do not designate or define functional areas nor have they been established in the IDIQ PWS.

Recommendation/Remedy: Designate and define the functional areas are in the IDIQ PWS and the TO PWS documents.

ANSWER: There is not a section 4.2.3.1.2. I believe you are referencing 4.2.4.1.2. Section 3 in each TO has a scope and description of the requirements, which defines the functional area.

c. Section L 4.2.2.1.1, a. IDIQ Management Page 6. Question/Issue: This section requires “An operations and maintenance plan for execution of daily operations including resource allocation within each functional area and task assignments”. However, there is no section in the RFP that designates the functional areas. Does “task assignments” refer to assignments under each of the five task orders? Also, is the contractor to assume they have been awarded all five task orders?

Recommendation/Remedy: Designate and define the functional areas. Delete the requirement for resource allocation within each functional area and task assignments

ANSWER: There is not a section 4.2.2.1.1. I believe you are referencing 4.2.4.1.2 Section 3 in each TO have a scope and description of the requirements, which defines the functional area. The contractor will be informed which TOs they have been awarded after the source selection process is completed.

d. TO4 PWS Section 11 Page 22. Question/Issue: In Section 11 of the TO4 PWS document, the second bullet in the personnel list is empty. Can the Government please clarify if there is a missing position title?

Recommendation/Remedy: Insert missing position title or delete bullet.

ANSWER: This should reference 2 position, one bullet will be removed.

e. TO2 PWS Sections 5.8 & 11. Question/Issue: In Section 5.8 of the TO2 PWS document, the Government states that contractors shall identify a Program Manager. In Section 11 of the TO2 PWS document, an Operations Lead/PM position is not listed. Can the Government clarify if a résumé is required for the TO2 Program Manager position?

Recommendation/Remedy: Confirm whether the program manager is considered key personnel for TO2, list in Section 11, and provide a position description and required qualifications.

ANSWER: Added PM position into section 11.

f. All 5 Task Order PWSs / Section L.4.2.4.1.2. b. Question/Issue: In Section L.4.2.4.1.2.b, The Government requests a resume for a PM is needed. In each of the 5 task order PWSs, a program manager (PM) is also listed as a Key Personnel. Can the Government clarify if only one PM is acceptable across all the 5 task orders or if each task order is required to have its own PM?

Recommendation/Remedy: Confirm whether only proposing one PM across all task orders is acceptable or if each Task Order requires its own PM.

ANSWER: One PM is acceptable if that person can provide the services described in section 5.8.

g. Section L.4.2.1. Question/Issue: In section L.4.2.1, The Government states that Subfactor One is pass/fail. However, Section M indicates that, “The Offeror’s response to Subfactor One will be rated using the scales in Tables 1 and 3”. Table 3 provides the evaluation criteria for Technical Risk.

• Will the Government clarify how Subfactor One will be evaluated under a pass/fail criteria?

• Will the rating for Technical Risk also be on a pass/fail basis?

• What is the standard for “pass” for each element of Subfactor One?

• Furthermore, key personnel resumes are required per Subfactor One, Section L. 4.2.4.1.2.

Are resumes also evaluated on a pass/fail basis?

Recommendation/Remedy: Provide clarification on how Subfactor 1 and resumes will be evaluated.

If they are pass/fail, provide the criteria for a passing evaluation.

ANSWER: Subfactor one will be rated using the scale in Table 1 and will be pass/fail.

h. Section L. 4.2.4.1.1. Question/Issue: The solicitation directs the offeror to propose managing personnel across various task orders to provide seamless, uninterrupted support. Should the offeror prepare his management plan as if the offeror has been awarded all five task orders? In the event task orders are awarded to multiple offerors, the government will be required to perform in a task order coordination/cross functional management role since there appears to be no intention to award a task order for program management to an offeror. For example, changing the trouble ticketing system product would require:

• Training of the personnel in Task Order (TO) 1

• Design, implementation, and testing in TO 2

• Engineering, security, and testing in TO 3

• Ordering and implementing servers in TO4

• Updating the intrusion detection processes in TO 5

This would require someone in the government or contractor staff to coordinate projects through the TO silos, particularly in the case of the award of TOs to four offerors.

Recommendation/Remedy: We recommend the government add a program management task order to be solicited and awarded.

ANSWER: The PM will be required to manage the personnel on the TOs they are awarded. The offeror should provide a management plan that describes an approach to manage across multiple TOs, as there is an opportunity to award multiple TOs to the same offeror. The PM will not be required to be in involved on the management of TOs they were not awarded.

i. Attachment 3. Page 1, Paragraph 2. Question/Issue: According to the instructions in this paragraph, the government questionnaire respondent is to put the following content into the subject line of the email which will transmit a completed questionnaire to the COMET contracting officers: COMET Past Performance Questionnaire Submission for <Company Name>.

We anticipate that these instructions may result in confusion when received.

Recommendation/Remedy: We recommend the respondent to use the following subject line:

COMET Past Performance for <Company Name> in Team <Prime/JV Offeror Name>.

ANSWER: Section L para 4.3.3 states The Offeror (which includes the Prime and all Teaming Partners), shall also submit past performance information for any significant or critical subcontractors/teaming partners. Therefore the submission will only list one offeror company name.

j. Attachment 3. Page 2, Paragraph A, Part I. Question/Issue: In the past performance questionnaire (PPQ) there could be confusion regarding which company name to put for “Company Name” as the offeror is the prime contractor and all subcontractors. The PPQ pertains to the performance of the company in the offeror’s team that performed the work, which may not be the offeror.

Recommendation/Remedy: Recommend the government change in Section A “Company Name” to “Contractor Name.”

ANSWER: The offeror should be submitting all the PPQs together. The company name will indicate the company that has performed the past performance.

k. Attachment 3. Page 2, Section A, Part II. Question/Issue: The questionnaire asks the respondent to describe the complexity of work with no further guidance. This will result in disparate responses that will be difficult to evaluate.

Recommendation/Remedy: We recommend adding to the complexity assessment question a series of check boxes that the Government evaluation team will use to assess the complexity of the work.

For example, the respondent could be asked to check off boxes after these subjects if the referenced contract involved such activities:

- User Support/Service Desk

- Server Administration

- Network Administration

- Cloud-based Server Use

- RMF document production and management

- Software development

- License Management

- Property Management

ANSWER: The offeror should indicate the type of services in the section prior to the complexity, which should include this type of information.

l. Attachment 3. Page 2, Section B, Part 2. Question/Issue: The questionnaire asks the respondent to rate the contractor’s performance regarding utilization of small business. For small business prime contractors, this is not required nor is it relevant.

Recommendation/Remedy: Recommend the government add a response choice of “Not Applicable” to this question.

ANSWER: N/A is acceptable if it fits.

m. Section L, Page 9, Paragraph 4.3.2. Question/Issue: Are Consent and Authorization letters required for all participants in an offeror’s team or for only team members for which a contract is offered as relevant past performance?

Recommendation/Remedy: Clarify whether all team members must provide consent and authorization letters or only those providing past performance references.

ANSWER: Section L para 4.3.1 states Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each Offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance. Therefore Consent and Authorization letters are required for all participants in an offeror’s team.

n. Section L, Page 10, Paragraph 4.3.4. Question/Issue: The solicitation directs the offeror to “Fill in Attachment 8 – Past Performance Teaming Matrix to show which team member(s) will be doing the work in each functional area of each task order.” However, Attachment 8 is designed to reflect only which team member has experience in the functional areas.

• Can offerors add additional team members to the worksheet by adding more columns? If a team has five companies with experience in a functional area, the offeror should be able to demonstrate the depth and strength of the team.

• Attachment 8 currently only allows for indicating which team members have experience in each functional area. It does not support showing which team member(s) will be performing in a functional area.

• Can offerors adapt Attachment 8 to show both experience and team assignments in this matrix? If not, will the government please update the attachment to allow demonstration of experience and work assignments in the team?

This could be accomplished by adding columns to indicate whether a teaming partner was tasked in a particular functional area in addition to showing whether the teaming partner had experience in the functional area.

Recommendation/Remedy: Modify Attachment 8 to allow for demonstration of experience and teamwork assignments.

ANSWER: Fill in Attachment 8 – Past Performance Teaming Matrix to show who will be doing the work in each functional area of each task order. The Offeror’s (Prime and teaming partners as a whole) Past Performance information should demonstrate experience in each of these functional areas.

o. Section L.4.3.3 Page 10. Question/Issue: In this section, the solicitation states “For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see Section M Evaluation Factors, section 2.3 Past Performance Factor.” Section 2.3 is Price. Should this sentence reference 2.2.3 rather than 2.3?

Recommendation/Remedy: Revise references to Section M 2.2.3 to 2.3.

ANSWER: Changes made to Section L.

p. Section M, Paragraph 2.2.3.4 and Attachment 3. Question/Issue: In paragraph 2.2.3.4, Relevancy Assessment, the solicitation states: “The past performance information questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.” However, the past performance questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment 3, does not request sufficient information to determine relevancy to the subfactors nor functional areas.

Recommendation/Remedy: Recommend Attachment 3 be updated to reflect whether the contract cited as past performance involved at least the evaluation subfactors and functional areas.

ANSWER: The past performance is being rated, not the technical experience.

q. Section M, Paragraph 2.2.3.5, Attachment 3. Question/Issue: The solicitation states: “For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors.” However, Attachment 3 seems to only solicit data relevant to Subfactor One, Management. The government will have no basis for establishing a performance quality assessment on five of the six subfactors.

Recommendation/Remedy: Include of additional questions to Attachment 3 to reflect performance on the technical Subfactors 2 through 6.

ANSWER: The quality of product or service will refer to the remaining subfactors.

r. Section M.2.2.3.5. Question/Issue: In the event the government’s quality assessment results in adverse findings, will the offeror be given the opportunity to respond to such adverse findings?

Recommendation/Remedy: Include a provision for offerors to address any adverse findings.

ANSWER: The Government will follow standard Source Selection procedures in accordance with DFAR Part 15. In the event discussions are opened, the Government may address issues in the proposals.

s. Attachment 7, TEP Workbook, Attachment 8, Past Performance Teaming Matrix, and TO1 End User Workspace Task Order. Question/Issue: The TO1 document referenced does not define functional areas of performance. Section 3, Requirements/Description of Services does not reference “functional areas” as subsections. The subsections that are included do not correspond to the content in Attachment 7 or Attachment 8.

Recommendation/Remedy: Define functional areas in the IDIQ PWS and TO PWS and update Attachments 7 and 8 to match the definitions.

ANSWER: Para 3 are the functional areas of performance.

t. Section M. 2.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Question/Issue: Section M.2.3.5 states “The TEP will be calculated using: a. The sum of the first five task orders that will be awarded concurrently with the IDIQ “contract for a period of performance of year one (1).”

Recommendation/Remedy: We respectfully request the government provide level of effort information on the volume of work and or personnel by functional role or labor category within the individual task orders.

ANSWER: The level or effort will depend on the experience category of the contractor workforce and will not be determined by the government.

u. IDIQ TO2 PWS General. Question/Issue: The various documents list multiple ticketing systems including:

• MS System Center Service Manager

• Remedy

• Atlassian Jira Service Desk

• Service Now

Recommendation/Remedy: Identify the full list of ticketing systems and how each is used (i.e., what functions or organizations they support)?

ANSWER: The current Enterprise Service Desk ticketing system administered by NASIC/SC is System Center Service Manager. This system is used for the majority of all incident requests, service requests, change requests, and problem requests on all classified and unclassified networks to service NASIC customers. The Enterprise Service Desk is currently migrating to ServiceNow to handle all of these requests and intends to go live with a new service portal in December, 2021. After that time, all services will be migrated from Service Manager into ServiceNow.

The Air Force operates Remedy on the unclassified NIPRNet for all Air Force incidents. NASIC manages a queue for any incidents routed for touch maintenance routed through the NASIC Service Desk.

The OPIR mission in GSP utilizes Jira Service desk for their mission-specific network and software only.

v. IDIQ PWS, Section 3, Requirement(s)/Description of Services. Question/Issue: Regarding Configuration Management Databases (CMDB):

• Are any in place?

• If so with which ticketing system(s)?

• Are they integrated with any Asset Management (AM) systems?

Recommendation/Remedy: Provide requested details on the CMDBs.

ANSWER: A partial CMDB exists as part of Microsoft System Center. However, NASIC is migrating the CMDB to ServiceNow. The CMDB will become dynamic once the IT Operations Management module and Discovery components are implemented in early CY2022. Asset Management will be loosely tied to the CMDB because of an “air-gap” problem between separate, classified networks.

w. IDIQ PWS, Section 3, Requirement(s)/Description of Services, Software Admin./Install/License Management. Question/Issue: Could the Government please identify what software or systems are used to manage software licenses, and indicate whether all software licenses are managed through this system?

Recommendation/Remedy: Provide information on the software and systems used to manage licenses.

ANSWER: We do not currently have the capability to automate the tracking of software and the licenses. Software and software licenses are currently manually tracked; future potential capability for tracking licenses may be the ITSM module within ServiceNow.

x. IDIQ PWS, Section 3, Requirement(s)/Description of Services, Database Management.

Question/Issue: Would the Government identify what versions of the various technologies are in use (e.g., Oracle, SQL)?

Recommendation/Remedy: Provide information on the remote support tool.

ANSWER: Oracle is the primary database used for intelligence production. Microsoft SQL is primarily used for support systems and specialized applications. MariaDB is also used to support ServiceNow and other specialized applications.

y. IDIQ PWS, Section 3, Requirement(s)/Description of Services, Multinational Information Sharing (MNIS) Support. Question/Issue: Would the Government identify the tool used for remote support (diagnosis/resolution)?

Recommendation/Remedy: Provide details on the versions of technology currently in use.

ANSWER: The MNIS support has recently been removed from the current contract requirements.

z. TO4 PWS, Section 7.3. Question/Issue: The TO references leveraging JPAS to provide clearance information. However, JPAS was retired as of 31 Mar 2021 so this may be an issue.

Recommendation/Remedy: Please clarify if the JPAS replacement, the Defense Information Security System (DISS) is to be used in lieu of JPAS.

ANSWER: JPASS was replaced with DISS.

aa. Section L.4.2.4.1.2b and the TO5 PWS Sections 2 and Section 5.1. Question/Issue: The TO5 PWS provides overall numbers of systems (Section 2) and building numbers (Section 5.1) but no details on system and facility configurations, workload, or staffing. Without detailed facility information and workload data for each facility, an independent staffing profile cannot be developed. Will the Government provide the required data for each facility?

Recommendation/Remedy: Provide staffing levels, position requirements and locations for the security support functions.

ANSWER: Currently (1) installation security forces member staffs a post within NASIC 24/7. Under the new Lenel system, these duties will be replicated by the dually staffed monitoring personnel in the Security Command Center operating 24/7 – 365 days.

bb. Section L.4.2.4.1.2b. TO5 PWS, Sections 3.1.1 and 5.18. Question/Issue: The TO5 PWS requires 24/7 support for system monitoring and maintenance (Section 3.1.1) and building numbers (Section 5.18) but provides no details on specific systems, responsibilities, workload, or facilities. Without detailed facility information and workload data for each 24/7 requirement, an independent staffing profile cannot be developed. To ensure accurate, consistent costs across competitors, will the Government please provide staffing levels, position requirements and locations for the 24/7 security support functions?

Recommendation/Remedy: Provide staffing levels, position requirements and locations for 24/7 security support functions required in TO5.

ANSWER: Currently (1) installation security forces member staffs a post within NASIC 24/7. Under the new Lenel system, these duties will be replicated by the dually staffed monitoring personnel in the Security Command Center operating 24/7 – 365 days.

cc. TO5 PWS, Sections 2. Question/Issue: In the TO5 document, it states “NASIC has a separate contract beginning in FY2021 and lasting for approximately 2 years….” Please provide the contractor(s) and contract number(s) for this installation, or the solicitation number(s) if it has not been awarded.

Recommendation/Remedy: Provide contractor name and contract number for the installation contract. If an award has not been made, please provide the solicitation number.

ANSWER: 2GIT: 1526157

GSA MAS 54151S: 1526163

NETOPS A&SFULL AND OPEN: 259013

NETOPS FULL&OPEN: 259015

NETOPS SMALL BUSINESS: 259016

dd. Section L.4.2.4.6.1. a. Question/Issue: Section L states “Proposal shall cite one example where the Offeror implemented and maintained the physical ACS, IDS, and CCTV systems for an SCI facility.” Was it the Governments intent to require a single citation to cover the implementation and maintenance of all three functions for an SCI facility, or can several citations be used to provide examples of these activities?

Recommendation/Remedy: Allow the offeror to provide multiple examples of implementation and maintenance of ACS, IDS, and CCTV systems for an SCI facility.

ANSWER: At least one example is needed, but the government wishes to see how Offeror’s have implemented all aspects of an electronic security system. If the Offeror has multiple examples where they have performed different aspects of physical security, then they can provide multiple examples.

ee. Section L.3.3 Page Size and Format, Paragraph b., Page 3. Question/Issue: The referenced section indicates that, “For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point.”; however, no font type is specified. Will the Government allow any font type as long as it is 8 points?

Recommendation/Remedy: Add language that permits any font type for tables, charts, graphs, and figures.

ANSWER: The government is not going to specify the font, it needs to be legible and readable.

ff. Section M.2.2.2 Factor One: Technical, Page 4. Question/Issue: Section M.2.2.2 defines both “Strengths” and “Available Strengths” as Measures of Merit. Please clarify the distinction between strength and available strengths. Will the offeror be evaluated on both strengths and available strengths? Can multiple strengths that do not meet the definitions of available strengths gain the offeror a rating higher than Green/Acceptable or do only strengths that meet the available strength definition count towards a rating higher than Green/Acceptable?

Recommendation/Remedy: Clarify the meaning of “strengths” and “available strengths” and how the offeror can earn a technical rating higher than Green/Acceptable.

ANSWER: The strength heading denotes that the offeror will be evaluated on the criteria listed in the “available strengths” sections that are listed in each subfactor. The criteria for receiving a rating higher than green is listed in Table 2 of Section M.

gg. Section M.2.2.2.6 Subfactor Six: Facility Security System Tasks, Pages 7-8. Question/Issue: The definition of Available Strengths notes that, “The Offeror’s proposal can be awarded strengths by proposing a sound approach to prepare the existing ACS, IDS, and CCTV systems to enable migration to the IC Badge System with minimal downtime and minimal service interruption.” How is the

Government defining “a sound approach”? What are the metrics for “minimal downtime and minimal service interruption”?

Recommendation/Remedy: Provide definitions of “sound approach” and metrics for “minimal downtime and minimal service interruption”.

ANSWER: An approach to a measure of merit (MoM) is determined to be ‘sound’ when the proposal contains all of the information instructed in Section L and--in the judgment of the evaluator-- the approach to meeting the requirements cited in the MoM has a firm basis, is based on valid reasoning, is thorough and complete, and is marked by common sense and good judgment.

35. Questions Attached:

a. Section L; Para. 4.3.1; Attachment 1. The first paragraph of Section L – Attachment 1 states, “Offeror’s must use the PPI Tool (Use latest version from SAM.gov) in order to electronically submit the PPI portion of the Past Performance Volume in accordance with the RFP.” When reviewing the Attachments/Links section of the SAM.gov posting for FA8604-21-R-B024, the link to the PPI tool (ppi.tool.accdb) is missing.

Question: Can the COMET Contracting Office please add the link to the PPI tool (ppi.tool.accdb) to the SAM.gov posting for Solicitation No. FA8604-21-R-B024? Thank you.

ANSWER: PPI tool has been updated in document section of the solicitation website.

b. Section L; Para. 4.3.3; Page 10 of 14. Section L, Para 4.3.3 states, Past performance for no more than three relevant contracts can be submitted for the Prime contractor and no more than a total of two for significant and critical subcontractors/partners.”

Question: The limit on Prime Contractor past performance citations is clear. With regards to significant and critical subcontractors/partners, are bidders limited to:

• No more than a total of two past performance citations for ALL significant and critical subcontractors/partners (i.e., a maximum of five past performance citations in Volume III) or

• No more than a total of two past performance citations for EACH significant and critical subcontractor/partner (i.e., total number of past performances in Volume III depends on the number of significant and/or critical subcontractors/partners)?

ANSWER: A maximum of three (3) past performance submission, with the possibility of two (2) additional coming from critical or significant subcontractors/teaming partners for a total of five (5).

c. Section L; Attachment 7 – Total Evaluated Price Workbook (unlocked) FINAL rev 5; Tab:

Transition Price (TO 1). Question: Can the Government provide a mapping of the Labor Categories, including LCAT descriptions/definitions, to the TO 1 PWS functional area

REQUIREMENT(S)/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE(S)?

For example, PWS 3.5 includes requirements for SC Software Administration with a scope inclusive of providing software support to include remote and at-the desk installation, troubleshooting, and remediation of end-user software requests, and creating and maintaining software packages used for customer installation within the NASIC application catalog and self-service portal. The Tab:

Transition Price (TO 1) LCAT of “3.5 Storage and Enterprise Backup Services SME” does not seem applicable.

Another example: TO 1 PWS functional area REQUIREMENT/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE 3.6 is for a SC Multimedia Hardware Technician. While PWS 3.6 contains VTC support tasks and Tab: Transition Price (TO 1) refers to 3.6 VTC Operations, the TO1 PWS functional area REQUIREMENT/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE 3.8 (not 3.6) covers SC VTC Operations.

ANSWER: The spreadsheet has been corrected, labor categories are dependent on the experience of the contractor work force.

d. Section L; Attachment 7 – Total Evaluated Price Workbook (unlocked) FINAL rev 5; Tabs:

Proposal Labor Price (TO 1); Proposal Labor Price (TO 2); Proposal Labor Price (TO 3); and Proposal Labor Price (TO4). The Labor Category Description categories in Proposal Labor Price Tabs TO 1, TO2, TO3, and TO4 do not align with the REQUIREMENT(S)/DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE(S) defined in the respective TO PWS documents. In addition, Proposal Labor Price Tabs TO2, TO3, and TO4 have the same Labor Category Description categories.

Question: Can the Government correct Section L; Attachment 7 to align with the REQUIREMENT(S)/ DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE(S) defined in the respective TO PWS documents. This will enable bidders to provide labor pricing in a clear, consistent, easy to evaluate manner.

ANSWER: The spreadsheet has been corrected.

e. COMET IDIQ PWS; Section 1; Page 2. Section 1 states, “NASIC is located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB), Fairborn, OH, Springfield Air National Guard (ANG) Base, Springfield, OH, with an operating location at Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, DC.”

Question: Can the Government confirm that all work to be performed under the COMET contract vehicle will be at the three NASIC facilities noted in Section 1? Or will work extend to other NASIC CONUS locations (e.g., Fort Huachuca, MacDill Air Force Base, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Offutt Air Force Base, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, etc.)?.

ANSWER: At this time, all work will be performed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB), Fairborn, OH, Springfield Air National Guard (ANG) Base, Springfield, OH.

f. Section L; Attachment 7 Total Evaluated Price Workbook (unlocked) FINAL rev 5; Tab: Contractor Labor Rates Summary; TO1 – TO5; Para. 11 Transition. While the Program Manager role is defined in Para. 5.8 of each TO PWS and is listed in Section L – Attachment 7 Tab: Contractor Labor Rates Summary, the Task Order Manager “Government Functional Area” in Attachment 7 is not defined in any TO PWS. In addition, the incumbent On-Site team specified in Para. 11 Transition of each TO references and Operations Lead/PM staff member.

Question: Can the Government delineate (via Labor Category Description or other means) the difference between the Program Manager, Task Order Manager (given that each TO is a separately awardable “program”), and Operations Lead roles?

ANSWER: Program manager and task order manager can be the same position depending on how the offeror plans to manage the possibility of being awarded multiple task orders. Operation lead roles are listed in section 11 of each TO.

36. Upon following the instructions to download the PPI Tool, found in Section L – Attachment 1: Past Performance Information Tool, we are not able to find the referenced “ppi tool” link

, the “All Files” column , and the solicitation’s “Notice Details” tab . We would appreciate it if the Government would clarify the instructions to indicate the locations of all of the aforementioned items.

ANSWER: The PPI tool and directions have been updated on the solicitation page.

37. Questions Attached:

a. All, L.4.6.1, Model…