SCARS_Responses_to_Industry_RFP_Questions.pdf

Industry Question Government Response Can you please clarify the wording of the sentence in Sec. 3.4.1 of the SRD with relation to ACAS? See updated SRD.

If offeror is not submitting as part of a joint venture, does the Government require a tab in Volume III Past Performance to follow the bulleted volume layout in Sect L.2.4.2? If yes, does the Government want the offeror to insert a "This page intentionally left blank" page behind the Joint Venture tab? Please confirm that any "This page intentionally left blank" page will not count against the 36‐page Volume III page count.

Sec. L, para. 2.4.2, says "The volume shall contain the following sections:" and then says in the bulleted list, "Joint Venture Information (if applicable)" ‐ No, a tab for JV info is not required if it does not apply to the situation.

Can you please clarify whether the definition in CLIN 0005 applies to the

Facility Stand‐up requirements in PWS 5.9.1?

Updated CRM and CLIN structure should resolve any confusion. All paragraphs of the PWS and SRD apply.

Section L, 2. Volume Organization, 2.1 General Volume II Attachments cites a “Product Support Plan” is required. Section L, 2.3.2.2. Subfactor 2: SCARS

Management Services, item b. refers to “Product Support requirements” as described in IDIQ PWS 4.6.9, 6.18. The Simulator Common Architecture

Requirements and Standards – SCARS, dated 21 December 2018, Performance Work Statement (PWS):

a. Paragraph 6.18.1, Product Support Logistics cites on lines 1738 and 1739

“…an initial and updated comprehensive logistics product support plan…”.

b. In a subparagraph which begins on line 1754, the PWS states, “The initial logistics plan shall…, …Plan shall be updated quarterly or every six months based on… ”.

c. Finally, line 1756 states “CDRL – Logistics Plan (DI‐SESS‐82178/T)”. Please note, “CDRL – Logistics Plan (DI‐SESS‐82178/T)” is listed sixteen times throughout section 6.18.

Based on the citations from the references to the Government documents listed above, are the “Product Support Plan” reference to in Section L, the

“comprehensive logistics product support plan” referred to in the PWS, and the “Logistics Plan” list as a CDRL requirement are the same document?

Please clarify. See updated documents.

The PWS states “The initial logistics plan shall…, …Plan shall be updated quarterly or every six months based on… ”. Will the Contractor or the

Government be responsible for determining if the update is required quarterly or every six months? See updated documents.

DI‐SESS‐82178/T was not provided as part of the Data Item Descriptions

(DIDs) in the Government’s Supporting Documents. Please provide the tailored DID DI‐SESS‐82178/T.

DID, DI‐SESS‐82178/T was provided in CDRL package.

Industry Questions and Government Responses to FA8621-18-R-0002 Simulator Common Architecture Requirements and Standards (SCARS)

Page 1 of 25 6 February 2019

Are the Product Support Plan and the Logistics Plan the same document?

In the event the Product Support Plan and the Logistics Plan are not the same document, please provide a CDRL/DID for the Product Support Plan.

The documents are the same. See updated documents.

Please define the anticipated number of Standards per year to be supported by CLIN 0023, Management Services and Software.

Precise number of standards cannot be provided.

The DMO standards documentation in the bidders library can be referenced to understand the anticipated complexities with standards updates and number of standards per year.

The TEP Workbook CLIN 017 Tab states, “Preparatory Services identified in

Task Order 001 will only be ordered once.” However there are numerous instances where Preparatory Services identified in Task Order 001 also coincide with other specified CLINs. For Example, TO‐001 Preparatory services includes 6000 hours for Reference Architecture Support (CLIN 016) or Site Surveys (CLIN 004). Please clarify if CLIN 017 should include “all” TO‐

001 specified Preparatory services, or just those Preparatory services not covered by other CLINs like the previous examples?

CLIN 0017 is just those preparatory services not covered by other CLINs.

Will the Government provide required Partner WAN portals at the SOC location at contract award?

The Government will provide (order) the Partner

WAN portals. The SCARS Prime will coordinate their delivery and installation at the SOC facility with the Partner contractor per SLAs/ACAs.

What timeline is the Government committing to for ATO package processing in support of a 180/120 day stand‐up?

The government will make best effort to process a complete, on‐time and quality ATO submission.

Section L 2.2.3 indicates that Section M references should be part of the

Cross Reference Matrix (CRM). However, SCARS RFP Attachment 9 does not contain a column for Section M references. Please advise whether references to Section M are required in the CRM. See updated CRM with instructions.

SCARS RFP Attachment 9 is organized according to the IDIQ PWS. Not every cell in column D for Subfactor (Section L) references contains an entry. Please clarify whether every IDIQ PWS entry requires a corresponding Proposal Volume cross‐reference, or if only those IDIQ PWS entries with an explicit Subfactor entry must be addressed in the proposal volume.

Is it acceptable to have blank entries in the Proposal Volume column if an

IDIQ PWS topic is not specifically required to be covered by the Section L requirements? See updated CRM with instructions.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 2 of 25 6 February 2019

One of the "objective" requirements in the IDIQ PWS and SRD is also included in Section M as a strength (SRD 3.7.19, Sec M 2.3.1.5.2.a.ii) , while other "objective" requirements are not. (SRD 3.7.20, PWS 5.2 Malicious

Code Analysis.)

Please explain how the government will assess an offeror's proposal that proposes to meet objective requirements if the requirements are not associated with a Section M strength?

The SRD has been updated to identify code analysis as an objective. There is also a corresponding objective in PWS paragraph 5.2

SCARS Library

Please clarify the proposal validity the Government is requesting to be submitted with Offeror’s proposals.

The cover page of the Model contract states 365 days in Block 12.

Distribution Statements: CCPs, ECPs, IPMR and CSFR are all Distribution D.

Please clarify how the USG will protect the Contractor’s (including subcontractor’s) proprietary rates and proprietary financial information that is provided in change proposals (CCPs, ECPs) and financial reporting

CDRLs (IPMR, CSFRs, etc.) as the USG is requesting these CDRLs as

Distribution D, which would allow the USG to provide these CDRLs to other

“DoD Contractors.”

These will remain Distribution D, and the

Government will not distribute outside of support contractors who have an appropriate NDA.

RFP Attachment 10, Section L, paragraph 2.3.1 states all the requirements in the solicitation are mandatory, yet SRD 3.7.19 and 3.7.20 are stated as

"Objectives" rather than "Shall" statements like 3.7.1 – 3.7.18. Please clarify what the Government's expectations are for "an objective".

Objectives in the SRD and PWS correspond to strengths in Section M. When an offeror commits to meeting a strength with a corresponding objective that objective becomes a shall statement (requirement), assuming the offeror's technical proposal supports the commitment to the strength/objective.

Exhibit A, IDIQ CDRL Package, Block 16, Item 1 states "Draft due with

Proposal." However, the Supplier's Configuration Management Plan is not listed in Section L requirements. Is the Supplier's Configuration

Management Plan the same as the Configuration Management Plan attachment identified in L.2.1 and required to be delivered as part of the

Technical Volume? If not, please clarify in what Volume the Supplier's

Configuration Management Plan is to be provided and whether or not it is excluded from the page limitations.

The Supplier’s Configuration Management Plan

(A007) is the same as the Configuration

Management Plan in Section L.2.1, and is required to be delivered as an attachment to the Technical

Volume. Therefore it is not included in the

Volume II page count.

Exhibit A, IDIQ CDRL Package, Block 16, Item 1 states "Initial due with

Proposal." However, the Logistics Plan is not listed in Section L requirements. Is the Logistics Plan the same as the Product Support Plan identified in L.2.1 and required to be delivered as part of the Technical

Volume? If not, please clarify in what Volume the Logistics Plan is to be provided and whether or not it is excluded from the page limitations. See updated documents.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 3 of 25 6 February 2019

Exhibit A, IDIQ CDRL Package, Block 16, Item 1 states "Submit with

Proposal." However, the Counterfeit Prevention Plan is not listed in Section

L requirements. Please clarify if the Counterfeit Prevention Plan is required to be provided with the proposal. If so, in what Volume and whether or not it is excluded from the page limitations. See updated documents.

Exhibit A, IDIQ CDRL Package, Block 16, Item 1 states "Submit with

Proposal." However, the IUID Marking Plan is not listed in Section L

Requirements. Please clarify if the IUID Marking Plan is required to be provided with the proposal. If so, in what Volume and whether or not it is excluded from the page limitations. See updated documents.

Does the Government want Organizational Structure Change Histories for each critical subcontractor? Or, does the Government want an

Organizational Structure Change History only for the prime offeror? See updated documents.

The OSMP template was not provided with the RFP. Can the Government provide the OSMP template mentioned in 2.3.2.3.a.1?

See updated Section L. DID is available at Quick

Search ASSIST website:

https://quicksearch.dla.mil

Block 16, Item 1 states "Initial due with Proposal." Please provide the tailored DID, DI‐SESS‐82178/T.

The construction is complete and the website is functioning as required. All the tailored DIDs are identified in the 1423s and are in the CDRL packages.

The website to obtain the DIDs (https://quicksearch.dla.mil) is under construction. When will the Government provide all of the tailored DIDs?

The construction is complete and the website is functioning as required. All the tailored DIDs are identified in the 1423s and are in the CDRL packages.

There is a requirement to provide the Counterfeit Prevention Plan (A052), referenced in paragraph 6.18.2.5, with the proposal as an addendum to the

Logistics Plan (A035). A052 references PWS paragraph 6.18.2.6, DMSMS, which will be included in the Counterfeit Prevention Plan submission. Also, closely related, but not required with the proposal is the Supply Chain Risk

Management (SCRM) Plan (A078), which as described in PWS 6.18.2.4, includes references to "...inclusion of counterfeit elements...". As these topics are all closely related and address the same subject, is it the

Government's intent to have one consolidated plan that addresses a

Counterfeit Prevention Plan (A052), DMSMS, and SCRM Plan (A078)?

Would the Government consider a single SCRM plan CDRL that includes the

Counterfeit Prevention and DMSMS?

It is not the Government's intent to have one consolidated plan at this time.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 4 of 25 6 February 2019

In clause AFLCMC/WNS‐H001 Commercial Computer Software License there are many references to Section J Attachment 11, SCARS_RFP_Attachment_11_Section_M.pdf. Believe the correct reference should be

SCARS_RFP_Attachment_7_Commercial_Software_Licenses.docx. Please clarify all references to Section J Attachment 11 in this clause. See updated Model Contract.

Section L 2.2.3 indicates that Section M references would be populated in the CRM by the Government at release. Will the Government will be providing guidance to offerors by populating Section J Attachment 9 CRM with references to Section M? See updated documents.

Currently there is insufficient information to provide a reasonable and accurate composite rate for the Quick Reaction Support System, CLIIN 010.

The range of work specified in the PWS is extremely broad and the

"Example Labor Categories anticipated by the Government" as listed in the

TEP spreadsheet represent a huge variance in direct labor rates. Without additional information, it is impossible to provide a reasonable composite rate for a range of expertise across labor categories ranging from a tech writer to a senior level systems engineer. This concern is compounded by the unbounded nature of this CLIN where an unlimited number of hours can be executed on any given task order. Can the Government provide more specificity into the skillsets and work envisioned under this CLIN and bound the quantity of hours expected to be executed under this CLIN?

The scope of work required and the hours necessary to perform the tasks are dependent upon the technical solution proposed by the offeror. The contractor's technical solution, coupled with the information provided, is sufficient.

Should CLIN 0010, and its options, be T&M CLIN types since a only a composite hourly rate is requested and the associated material CLINs, x011, are CR? No, the contract type for CLIN 0010 is FFP.

Since this is a site acquisition and support contract with periods of performance under a year per site, is the EV and cost reporting negotiable or even a requirement until the $100M threshold is achieved? This will add significant cost to the program and may prove to be difficult, at best, for the subcontractors.

Not negotiable. The requirements are as stated in the solicitation. Full EVM is not the requirement.

The locations and number of sites involved with CLINs 0002 and 0003 are not listed. Will the Government be evaluating offerer’s submissions based on their assumptions and how will a fair and reasonable assessment be made since no standard site locations are listed in the RFP?

The Government has requested site‐agnostic pricing.

On CLINs where there are multiple deliveries, e.g. site surveys, units delivered etc., is the billing a CLIN level DD250 only or as each site is completed and CDRLS/HW deliveries are accepted?

No, the billing will not always be a CLIN‐level

DD250. Billing will be determined on a case‐by‐ case basis, depending on the size of the task order.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 5 of 25 6 February 2019

For calculating small business participation, should the percentage be on the initial task order, or on the full five‐year initial contract. If the latter, what assumptions should be used with regard to the scope of the five‐year effort?

The percentage will be calculated using the initial task order value.

DFARS 252.234.‐7003 (Notice of Cost and Software Data Reporting System) was incorporated by reference but the Government‐approved cost and software data (CSRD) plan for the contract (DD Form 2794 and the related

Resource Distribution Table was not included in the solicitation. This clause adds significant work for the bidder, request this clause be removed from the solicitation or that the requirement that this be included with the pricing proposal be removed. The provision has been removed.

Section 2.6 of Section L (Volume V ‐ Contract Documentation) references the Voluntary Protection Plan, the requirements of which are contained in section 1.3.2 of the IDIQ PWS. Section M does not mention this plan is being evaluated. It is requested if this requirement can be removed during the proposal stage since it adds considerable work on the bidder but is not evaluated on its own. See updated documents.

Attachment 9 Cross Reference Matrix: Should the “CDRL” column include

Section, Paragraph, and Page Number details for the Attachments, such as the Open Systems Management Plan? E.g., for Row 59 of Attachment 9

(PWS Paragraph 4.6.9 Open Business Practices), is the following example text expected “CDRL ‐ Open Systems Management Plan: Section 3, Paragraph 3.2, Page 13”?

The Government requests listing Section, Paragraph, and Page Number details for the

Attachments.

CDRL A034 should be tailored to exclude Formats I, II, III, IV, and VII.

Format V should be tailored to include IMS narrative only. Per FAR clause

234.201, the application of earned value management is discouraged for firm fixed price contracts and cost contracts valued at less than $20 million.

The IMS (Format VI) and IMS narrative (Format V) should be the only IPMR requirement.

The requirements are as stated in CDRL A034.

CDRL A034 has been updated with administrative only changes.

Why is CDRL A012 required on all CLINs. Should this CDRL be tailored to reflect CLIN 11? The requirements are as stated in the solicitation.

Would OCI considerations preclude, in any way, the SCARS prime contractor from performing work as a subcontractor to a TSAIII aircrew training system (ATS) prime contractor?

OCI will be taken into consideration for each individual TSA III task order.

Section L, 2.5.2 states the TEP spreadsheet is to be provided in electronic format. Please confirm the Government does not want a printed version of the spreadsheet in Volume IV Price.

Correct, the TEP is only required in electronic format.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 6 of 25 6 February 2019

This paragraph states: “The TEP will be utilized to evaluate Offerors and make tradeoffs when necessary, but will not be the ultimate contract price for this acquisition. The TEP will be used for price evaluation purposes only.” However, Section L 2.5.2.1 Completed TEP Spreadsheet states “The completed pricing matrices will become part of the awarded contract in

Section J.” How will the TEP become part of the contract?

The "Pricing Matrix" tab of the TEP workbook will become part of the awarded contract. The intent is to be able to order supplies/services using the pricing tables in the Pricing Matrix.

The first two references require the offeror to provide change bars only within the Technical Proposal to indicate statements that propose strengths over and above the basic solicitation requirements. The latter reference states: “The Government may also request PWS language in order to incorporate unique or innovative approaches.” The Government does not indicate if the change bars need to be included in the PWS, SRD, etc. which are currently only required to be submitted in the model contract in Volume V. Please advise if the Government desires change bars in both Volume II, Technical narrative, and Volume V, Contract

Documentation (such as in the model contract attachments like the SRD, PWS, etc.)? If the Government wants the model contract attachments shown with change bars in Volume II, Technical, please confirm this would be outside the page count.

Please submit all model contract attachments with Vol. V and additionally in other volumes if specifically called out in Sec. L 2.1, Volume

Organization Table. See updated Section L & M.

This paragraph states: “The following Section J attachments and exhibits are included as part of the contract.” Please confirm Sections L and M, which are listed in this paragraph, will be excluded from the award.

Correct, Sections L & M are part of the solicitation only. They will not be attachments to the awarded contract.

For CLINs 0010 and 0016, the TEP Spreadsheet requires labor rates only with no ceiling calculation. How will the awarded value of CLINs 0010 and

0016 be calculated?

The awarded value will be calculated using the composite rate multiplied by the number of hours ordered on an individual TO.

Regarding CLINs 0010 and 0016, how will the fully loaded composite rates be used and how will the level of effort be determined?

The awarded value will be calculated using the composite rate multiplied by the number of hours ordered on an individual TO.

Model Contract states that the NAICS code for the acquisition is 541512, size standard $27.5 million. Please clarify if subcontractors will need to certify to the same NAICS code as the Prime Contractor, or if they may certify to an alternative NAICS code that best fits the work they are performing and/or the materials they are providing.

Please see post on FBO dated 28 Jun 18 for clarification. They may certify to the NAICS code that best matches the work they are performing.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 7 of 25 6 February 2019

The following two paragraphs in sections L &M discuss proposal strengths:

Section L, 2.3.2.4, Strengths. In order to address strengths, the Offeror shall adjust the appropriate contractual document(s) with change bars with the contractual commitment in their Technical Volume. Section M, 2.3.1.5.2, Strengths. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to assess one or multiple strengths to Offerors’ proposals that exceed the requirements in the SCA, Management Services, and

Government Ownership of the Technical Baseline subfactors. Strengths will be contractually binding upon contract award. In order to address strengths, the Offeror shall adjust the appropriate contractual document(s) with change bars with the contractual commitment in their Technical

Volume. Is it the government’s intent to only consider these as strengths if they are also documented via change bars in the contract documentation such as the SRD, PWS(s), etc included in the model contract attachments?

The Government expects consistency with change bars in both volumes.

PPI Tool, Program Details Tab, second box instruction "Explain how your performance on this contract is relevant for each applicable factor or subfactor, as instructed under Past Performance in Section M of the RFP”.

Please clarify if the current language within the PPI Tool, Program Details tab, second box "….relevant for each applicable factor or subfactor, as instructed under Past Performance in Section M of the RFP " was meant to read "...relevant for each category as instructed in Section M, paragraph

2.3.2.4.1"

Yes, the interpretation of the PPI Tool is correct.

See updated PPI Tool instructions in Section L.

Section L 2.4.2 directs us to include the PPI Tool outputs into our Vol III, Past Performance. Section L 2.1 requires a specific font and that .pdf imports be searchable. Are we allowed to modify the PPI tool outputs to comply with the font and searchability requirements?

There is no need to modify the PPI Tool outputs.

They do not need to comply with the formatting requirements of Sec. L. They should be printed and submitted as is.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 8 of 25 6 February 2019

The ID/IQ PWS specifies specific security requirements for SCARS Prime contractor personnel in sections like 5.6, 5.9.1, and 6.7.2 but there are some sections like 4.3.1 (Site survey and Installation) and 6.4.1 (standards services) that do not specify any security credentials for the personnel working within those areas. In those areas where no security credentials are specified should the bidder assume "none" are required (e.g. the personnel performing the installations or site surveys require no security clearances)? If security clearances, SAP Accesses, or SCI compartment access are required for the personnel, how does the Government want the bidders to price the cost of personnel/services at the different security levels (UNCLASS, SECRET, SAP, and TS/SCI CLINs are not provided to price execution within different security levels within those CLINs)? Please refer to updates to the IDIQ PWS.

Can the contractor assume the estimated period of performance on TO 01 will be 12 months as the PoP will be need to be known to determine a monthly price for CLIN 0023?

The PoP for Task Order 1 is expected to be 12 months.

CLIN 0017 Preparatory Services states “In addition, the SCARS Prime shall procure, deliver, set up, and test the SCARS OPE and network connection for the first SCARS Affiliate service.” Can the government confirm that the material for the first OPE shall be procured under CLIN 0017? Confirmed.

A requirement in TO 0001 PWS 3.1 says that "The SCARS Prime shall document the SCA in a Reference Architecture IAW IDIQ PWS Para 4.2

(CLIN 0017)". Should this specific requirement be allocated to CLIN 0016 ‐

Reference Architecture instead?

This specific requirement is allocated to CLIN

0016.

Task Order 001 PWS section 5 indicates that the efforts described are priced as part of CLINs 0005 and 0012, but there is no information on how the requirements are to be mapped to CLINs. Are the requirements part of

CLIN 0005, part of CLIN 0012, or a combination of the two? Or should they be duplicated in both CLINs, per the section title? See updated documents.

CLIN 0014 requests a monthly price for Help Desk operations; however, Task Order 1 section 3.1 states “The SCARS Prime shall define and present the design of the Help Desk operations to meet the requirements described in IDIQ PWS Para 5.5, which will be implemented in a future task order.” Please clarify what effort should be priced in CLIN 0014.

Preparatory services for the Help Desk should be on CLIN 0017.

Regarding the acceptance criteria for the SOC scaling, "shall demonstrate the architecture’s ability to scale to 120 sites and 180 sites", please clarify the acceptance test process for demonstrating the capability to scale?

Acceptance test procedures (ATP) will define the test process.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 9 of 25 6 February 2019

Regarding restriction of processing of SCARS events to the SOC, is this restriction only in relation to security data collected? Please refer to updates to the TO 1 PWS.

What are the exit criteria for TO 1? Will DD250 deliveries be required for the SOC and 4 OPE's separately, or all at once?

DD250 deliveries will be required separately in accordance with the CLIN(s).

What are the acceptance criteria for the delivery of the first 4 OPEs? How will the government perform acceptance testing of OPEs? How is the testing different for units 2 through 4 from the first unit?

Acceptance criteria will be defined through the

ATP.

What are the acceptance criteria for the delivery of the SOC? Are the acceptance criteria defined by the contractor in the test plan called for in section 4.3, Para 2?

Acceptance criteria will be defined through the

ATP.

There is a requirement for SysML in the IDIQ PWS and a similar requirement for SysML in the SRD. There are also requirements for using frameworks like DoDAF and UPDM in the IDIQ PWS. Does the Government desire SysML or DoDAF for delivery of CDRL A029 System/Subsystem

Design Description (SSDD). It is recommended that the government consistently require SysML in CDRL A029.

A029 defines the delivery requirements correctly.

XML and .XMI are the interchange format. DoDAF views can be delivered as a part of the XMI file.

SRD 3.2.4 was clarified to "have the capability to scale". Is the intention the same for 3.2.5, to have the capability of scaling security domains at a rate of 3 per year? See updated SRD.

Can the gov't provide instructions for developing and submitting the

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS); specifically, period of performance, any specific milestones, and acceptance criteria to indicate the completion of tasking? The Government is not supplying this information.

Please provide instructions for developing and submitting the Integrated

Master plan (IMP) related to the pricing scenarios and the TEP.

The IMP should be informed by the technical solution proposed.

Attachments 5 (Small Business Participation Commitment Document), 6

(Technical Data and Computer Software Assertions), 7 (Commercial

Software Licenses), and 9 (Cross Reference Matrix) are required in multiple locations (all in Volume V and then some in Volumes I and II). Can the

Government please clarify if the Attachments are meant to be included in both locations per their specific instructions?

Yes, please submit all model contract attachments in Vol. V and additionally in other volumes if called out in Sec. L, 2.1, Volume Organization

Table.

Section L calls for a "Small Business Participation Commitment Document

(SBPCD)" and provides instructions on what to provide under the Technical

Volume (See sub‐paragraphs i, ii, iii, and iv for the details (no dollars, just

%)). Is this SBPCD considered as an attachment to the Technical Volume and covered within the 75 page limit?

Per Sec. L 2.1, it is considered an attachment to

Vol. II and is therefore excluded from the page limitation per the table.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 10 of 25 6 February 2019

Can the Government provide the full text of clause 5252.209‐9001 Alt 1 and Policy Memo 10‐C‐15? The clause and memo are not accessible on the

FAR Site.

That information was posted to FBO on 09 Nov

18.

Would the Government please consider allowing the use of Arial font in graphics/figures? And would the Government please consider allowing the use of 8 pt font in graphics/figures? Follow the instructions in Section L.

Would the Government please clarify the requirement to submit Microsoft

Office 2010 or newer, and Adobe Acrobat 9.0 or newer files? For instance, is it required to submit proposal files in both Word and PDF? Or would searchable PDFs, Excel, and Project files, where required, suffice?

Provide in both MS Office and Adobe PDF formats.

In Section L at the beginning of each Volume requirements description

(references at left), the Government provides format and specific content instructions as a bulleted and/or indented list of the deliverables required for the volume. However, those lists are often not aligned (not the same order and sometimes not the same naming/type of document (attachment versus proposal section, etc.) with the table in Section L 2.1, or the numbered instructions within the more detailed volume instructions.

Would the Government please clarify whether they would like us to organize and order our proposal based on the table at 2.1, the bulleted/indented lists, or the numbered descriptions of requirements and their order? (e.g., for Volume II, the Glossary is with the front matter and in

Volumes III & IV, the Glossary is at the end; no glossary requirement for

Vol. V. For Volume III, in the table in Section 2.1, the Consent Letters are listed as separate attachments and in the bulleted list in 2.4.2, they are combined with the PPQ Contact Listing, and then separate again in the numbered, detailed instructions. Volume V's bulleted list (2.6) includes a

Voluntary Protection Plan (as does the PWS and Cross Reference Matrix), but it has been removed from the detailed requirements and table in

Section L 2.1. See updated Section L.

Is it the Government's intent for the Offeror to include a separate section in Volume II, at the Subfactor level, to address Strengths despite the duplication (as they will all be addressed within the Subfactor responses and called out as Strengths)?

The Government does not expect a separate section for strengths.

Does the Government require that the strength for the stand‐up of the

Interim SOC in 2.3.1.5.2.b.i meet all requirements of SF2 2.3.1.3.c but within 120 days instead of 180 days? Yes, the commitment is to all the requirements.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 11 of 25 6 February 2019

Per the government's technical rating criteria in 2.3.1.5.1, an "outstanding" rating will be assessed for multiple strengths and a "good" rating will be assessed for one strength. Given only one strength is available for

Subfactor 3 per 2.3.1.5.2, is it only possible for an Offeror to achieve a

"good" rating for Subfactor 3?

All proposals will be assessed in accordance with

Section M.

Are offerors able to propose additional strengths not explicitly listed in

2.3.1.5.2? If so, how will the gov't assess those strengths? No. See updated Sec. M language.

The CLIN listing provided in the Final Contract Document removed references to ID/IQ PWS, TO 001 PWS, and SRD requirements needed to ensure price information is presented consistently across all Offerors. The mapping provided in the TO 001 PWS provides direct mapping to CLINs for those efforts specific to TO 001. The TEP requests additional pricing information that is NOT part of TO 001. Can the gov't provide additional mappings to the ID/IQ PWS and SRD for the entire TEP? See updated documents.

CLIN 0005, TEP, reference to cell “C7” in the “For example…”, the 4th paragraph should likely reference cell “C8”. Is this correct?

The C7 cell is correct. The example identifies

"equipment and software and standup" in year

2020. The cells D8+E8 would be for the additional

"equipment and software and equipment" needed to increase the capacity of the 2020 equipment to support to 121 end nodes. Given the scalability requirements, the Government does not anticipate disposing of Equipment and

Software acquired in 2020.

The pricing matrix references “End Node”. Can the government please provide a clear definition of "end node" as referenced in the pricing matrix? See updated TEP.

CLIN 0024 is split between 0024AA (“defining, designing, delivering, and deploying the 4 Operating Systems listed in SRD section 3.14.1”) and

0023AB (“the Cyber Secure Operating Systems Services sustainment of the deployed operating systems in SRD section 3.14.1”). There are only 4 OSs listed in all of 3.14.1. Can the gov't please clarify the difference between

CLIN 0024AA and 0023AB?

0024AA is for the initial configuration and delivery of the OS'. 0024AB is for the sustainment of those

OS' delivered under 0024AA

CLIN 0023 Management Services includes PM and other efforts that are not dependent upon the number of END NODES supported. Recommend making the initial quantity 0‐10 to support capturing these costs. See updated TEP.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 12 of 25 6 February 2019

CLINs 0100, 1100, 2100, 3100, 4100, 5100 – Can the Government further define the intent of these CLIN(s). Given there is no pricing table included for these CLIN(s), are they intended to cover directed changes issued pursuant to the Changes Clause?

They are placeholders within the numbering construct at the ID/IQ level for future CLINs that might need to be added that do not fit within the existing CLIN nomenclature.

FAR 52.215‐21, 52.216‐19, 52.216‐22, 52.217‐06, 52.217‐07, 52.217‐08,

252.211‐7003 and 252.216‐7006 – These clauses are incomplete. In order to level the playing field and set the same expectation for all contractors, it is requested that the Government complete these clauses with the information necessary to best understand the Government’s intent. See updated Model Contract.

FAR 52.227‐13 Patent Rights – Ownership by the Government It is requested the Government consider deleting this clause. Given it is expected that this contract will be issued to a US based contractor, inclusion of this clause is inconsistent with implementing provision. DFARS

252.227‐7038 Patent Rights‐‐Ownership by the Contractor (Large Business) should be included instead. See updated Model Contract.

FAR 52.244‐02 Subcontracts – Paragraph (d) is labeled as “TBD”. Can the

Government set as “None” and handle any subcontractors that require consent via a later change to the contract. If this approach is not acceptable, request Government’s concurrence that any subcontractors identified in the Contractor’s initial and final proposals are considered approved for use on the effort.

TO1 has no subcontract restrictions under FAR

52.244‐02 paragraph (d).

DFARS 252.227‐7026 & 7027 – Deferred Ordering of Technical Data or

Computer Software – Would the Government consider deleting these clauses as all required/desired Tech Data and Computer Software has been identified and included in the Solicitation and it is unlikely that further

Technical Data and Computer Software will be required after completion of the effort.

The Government will not be removing these clauses.

DFARS 252.246‐7001 Warranty of Data and Warranty of Data Alt II ‐ It is requested Government consider deleting this clause as it places additional liability on the contractor and could result in higher pricing to the

Government. See updated Model Contract.

DFARS 252.227‐7020 Special Works – It is requested the Government delete this clause as there are no special works defined in the solicitation. See updated Model Contract.

DFARS 252.227‐7011 Assignment ‐ It is requested the Government consider deleting this clause as this clause pertains to settlement of patent disputes and are not relevant to the model contract. See updated Model Contract.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 13 of 25 6 February 2019

DFARS 252.227‐7012 Patent License and Release Contract – It is requested the Government consider deleting this clause as this clause pertains to settlement of patent disputes and are not relevant to the model contract. See updated Model Contract.

Deletion of FAR 52.242‐11 is recommended. Clause is no longer valid. See updated Model Contract.

Deletion of FAR 52.249‐04 is recommended given the requirements of

49.502 (a) are not met. See updated Model Contract.

Deletion of FAR 52.215‐14 Alt 1 is recommended as there is a blanket notification requirement to the Contracting Officer. See updated Model Contract.

The Cross Reference Matrix spreadsheet includes embedded comments which raise questions as to the correct mapping of ID/IQ PWS, Task Order

0001 PWS and SRD requirements to CLINS, CDRLS and the Subfactors of the

Response.

Cell F27 [4.2.7. SOC Baseline Recovery] states ‐ "Not ordering, only ordering design!"

The relevant Task Order 0001 PWS requirement states "The SCARS Prime shall provide the preparatory services necessary to design, deliver, and maintain the SOC Baseline Recovery IAW IDIQ PWS Para 4.2.7 and the

SCARS SRD Para 3.3.10". Can the gov't clarify the intent of the comment in cell F27? See updated CRM.

The Cross Reference Matrix spreadsheet includes embedded comments which raise questions as to the correct mapping of ID/IQ PWS, Task Order

0001 PWS and SRD requirements to CLINS, CDRLS and the Subfactors of the

Response.

Cell F33 [4.3.4. SCARS Network Equipment Install Services] states ‐ "0008 is for the equipment itself, but no install clin? Use ope install clin??"

Since there is no CLIN specifically for OPE Installation, should the bidder assume that installation costs are ALWAYS wrapped into the equipment

CLINs, specifically CLINs 0007 for the OPE and 0008 for the Network

Equipment? See updated CRM.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 14 of 25 6 February 2019

Task Order 0001 PWS section 5 states "The SCARS Prime shall stand up a

Temporary SOC facility at a CONUS location IAW IDIQ PWS Paras 5.9.1 ‐

5.9.3 and 5.9.7", while Section 7 addressed ID/IQ PWS 5.9.7 twice: "The

SCARS Prime shall develop a contingency plan for the system IAW NIST SP

800‐ 34, “Contingency Planning (CP) Guide for Federal Information

Systems” and use the “Contingency Planning: Low Impact System

Template” IAW IDIQ PWS Para 5.9.7. The Contingency Plan shall meet requirements of the CP security family from NIST SP 800‐ 53" and "The

SCARS Prime shall develop an Incident Response Plan IAW PWS IDIQ Para

5.9.7 and NIST SP 800‐61 that shall also meet requirements of the Incident

Response security control family from NIST SP 800‐53". The section 5 requirement seems to be directed at CLIN 0005 (but is not stated explicitly), while the related/duplicate effort in Section 7 is clearly CLIN

0012. Can the gov't clarify where this work is to be performed and under what CLIN such costs should be captured? See updated CRM.

The Final ID/IQ PWS added section 6.20 "Travel", but this section is not in the Cross Reference Matrix provided as Attachment 9. Can the gov't please update the Cross Reference Matrix regarding Task Oder 001 PWS, SRD, Subfactor, CLIN, and CDRL mappings for these new requirements. See updated CRM.

Both the Task Order 001 PWS and the Attachment 6 Cross Reference

Matrix provide partial indirect mappings of the ID/IQ PWS requirements to the CLINs, but they do not provide the same mappings. Please clarify the definitive mapping of ID/IQ PWS requirements to CLINs for the proper development of the TEP. Please see updated documents.

In the Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) Cell A25, ID /IQ PWS 4.2.5 "Network

Equipment and Software" is not shown as mapped to any CLINS. Task

Order 001 PWS indicates that these requirements should be part of CLIN

0023. Please clarify which is correct. Is 4.2.5 effort priced under CLIN 0023? See updated CRM.

CRM Cell A26, ID /IQ PWS 4.2.6 "Network Services" is not shown as mapped to any CLINS. Task Order 001 PWS indicates that these requirements should be part of CLIN 0023. Please clarify which is correct. Is

4.2.6 effort priced under CLIN 0023? Please see updated documents.

CRM Cell A33, ID /IQ PWS 4.3.4 "SCARS Network Equipment and Install

Services" is not shown as mapped to any CLINS. Task Order 001 PWS does not provide a corresponding mapping, but the Government desires it to be discussed in Subfactor 2. Please clarify which is correct. Is 4.3.4 effort unpriced or if not, under which CLIN should it be priced? Please see updated documents.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 15 of 25 6 February 2019

CRM Cell A58, ID /IQ PWS 4.8 "MOSA Metrics" is not shown as mapped to any CLINS. Task Order 001 PWS does not provide a corresponding mapping, but the Government desires it to be discussed in Subfactor 3. Please clarify which is correct. Is 4.8 effort unpriced or if not, under which CLIN should it be priced? Please see updated documents.

CRM Cell A83, ID /IQ PWS 6.1 "Establish and Execute Agreements" is not shown as mapped to any CLINS. Task Order 001 PWS does not provide a corresponding mapping, but the Government desires it to be discussed in

Subfactor 2. Please clarify which is correct. Is 6.1 effort unpriced or if not, under which CLIN should it be priced? Please see updated documents.

CRM Cell A84, ID /IQ PWS 6.1.1 "Service Level Agreements (SLA)" is not shown as mapped to any CLINS. Task Order 001 PWS does not provide a corresponding mapping, but the Government desires it to be discussed in

Subfactor 2. Please clarify which is correct. Is 6.1.1 effort unpriced or if not, under which CLIN should it be priced? Please see updated documents.

CRM Cell A85, ID /IQ PWS 6.1.2 "Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA)" is not shown as mapped to any CLINS. Task Order 001 PWS does not provide a corresponding mapping, but the Government desires it to be discussed in Subfactor 2. Please clarify which is correct. Is 6.1.2 effort unpriced or if not, under which CLIN should it be priced? Please see updated documents.

CRM Cell A86, ID /IQ PWS 6.2 "Stakeholder Collaboration Website" is not shown as mapped to any CLINS. Task Order 001 PWS indicates that these requirements should be part of CLIN 0023. Please clarify which is correct. Is

6.2 effort priced under CLIN 0023? Please see updated documents.

CRM Cell A160, ID /IQ PWS 6.19 "Small Business Participation" is not shown as mapped to any CLINS. Task Order 001 PWS indicates that these requirements should be part of CLIN 0023. Please clarify which is correct. Is

6.2 effort priced under CLIN 0023? Please see updated documents.

Are the To Be Negotiated CLINS to be negotiated after award as a part of a follow‐on task order?

They will be negotiated when included in a future

Task Order requirement.

On tab “B_Labor Rates Detail”, does the Government intend for all indirect costs (Overhead, G&A, etc.) and fee to be included in the “Fringe” columns as a lump sum?

No, only costs associated with Fringe benefits should be included.

Should a hard copy of Attachment 16 be in the Cost Volume as part of the

Professional Compensation Plan section or as an electronic attachment only? Electronic submission only.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 16 of 25 6 February 2019

Given that Attachment 16 requires submission of proprietary company data (direct labor rates and fringe), will the Government accept a sealed or separate submission of this data for subcontracted Labor Categories? Yes

Does the Government want bidders to combine the 2 .mdzip files (1 for

Reference Architecture and 1 for OV and CV views) into a single file?

They are two separate requirements. The

Government expects two separate files.

There is insufficient information to accurately define the computational requirements for the three OPE versions. Are the defined threshold computational capacities, as defined in SRD paragraph 3.8, inclusive of the infrastructure and enterprise services (e.g. ACAS, Active Directory, etc), or are the capacities specified solely for the onboarding of SCARS baseline applications over and above the enterprise services?

The computational capacities required are inclusive of the infrastructure enterprise services.

Versions will be scaled as necessary to support

SCARS baseline applications.

Currently there is insufficient information to provide a reasonable and accurate unit price for OPE Equipment and Installation, CLIN 007. Though the equipment may be the same and consistent, the integration and sell‐off testing will be dependent on the number of trainers at each site. Will the government provide the number of trainers at each site?

The Government believes there is sufficient SRD information for the OPE. The Government sized three versions to ensure equipment would be sufficient for variances in sites. The information provided in the Bidders Library is sufficient for determining integration efforts for number of trainers at each site.

Does the Government require the “…narrative of the MBSE System

Model…” (described in 2.3.2.3.a.2) to be provided as a separate attachment to Volume II or an “in‐line” narrative within the Technical

Volume? If it is a separate attachment, will it be added to the list of attachment in table 2.1?

The MBSE System Model narrative is to be "in‐ line" within the Technical Volume for things above and beyond the narrative found in the OSMP.

The IDIQ PWS states SCARS Prime shall ensure that SBRUs can remotely restore the OPE software configurations from a centrally managed location. Please confirm whether it is necessary to have recovery options at multiple sites See IDIQ PWS 4.2.8

Please confirm whether the Air Force is requesting the ability to host

Containers and virtual machines in the same hypervisor. The requirements are as stated in the SRD.

Please confirm whether the Air Force is requesting to provide the

Container and VM virtualization through the same management solution. The requirements are as stated in the SRD.

The term Security Domain is can be defined in many ways depending on the context. Please provide a definition and example of a Security Domain in the context of the SCARS environment.

Foremost the traditional DoD MLS Security domains of Unclassified, Secret, Top Secret.

Additionally many simulators operate within

Special Access domains which require additional levels of separation within each classification.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 17 of 25 6 February 2019

Please confirm that the proposed software must manage both hardware and software components of the system. The requirements are as stated in the RFP.

Please confirm that the proposed software must manage both physical and virtual machines, networks, and storage. The requirements are as stated in the RFP.

Does a document exist that provides a narrative description of the processes laid out in flow chart from in the SCARS Standards Maintenance

Process (SMP)? If so, can the Government add the SMP narrative description to the Bidder’s Library?

The Government provided this information to the

Bidders Library recipients.

In the draft RFP dated 4 October 2018, the Government provided a mapping of PWS Elements to CLIN via attachment

“SCARS_Draft_CLIN_Structure_04_Oct_18”. This mapping does not appear in the final RFP provided 21 December 2018. In order to ensure balance and consistency amongst all offerors, request the Government provide a mapping from PWS task to the CLIN Structure. See updated documents.

Please confirm all travel incurred under this contract to be billed under

CLIN X027. If any travel costs are to be included in the pricing for any other

CLIN, will the Government please indicate which CLIN(s)?

The only CLINs that include travel are 0002, 0003, 0004.

The Government removed the requirement to include a Voluntary

Protection Plan (VPP) from sections L and M. However, a VPP is still included in PWS 1.3.2 and the Cross Reference Matrix maps this PWS requirement to Subfactor 2. Will the Government remove the Subfactor 2 mapping in the CRM? And, if not, confirm this is an FYI and not to include a

VPP in the proposal submission.

There is not a requirement to submit a Voluntary

Protection Plan with the proposal. The VPP reference in Sec. L has been removed. The Prime will still be required to comply with PWS para.

1.3.2. in performance of the contract.

Section L, 2.3.1 states “ It is not necessary or desirable for Offerors to address the entire ID/IQ PWS within their proposal.”

Will the Government confirm that if a PWS or TO 001 PWS Para (Column A or B) is not mapped to a Subfactor in Column D, the offeror does not need to cross‐reference to a location in the Technical Volume via Column G? Please see updated CRM.

Different subsections within PWS 5 are specifically mapped throughout subfactors 1, 1a, 2, 2b, and 2c, or not mapped at all. Will the Government confirm that all of PWS 5 is to be mapped throughout Subfactor 2, but not specifically Subfactors 2b or 2c and update the CRM accordingly? Please see updated CRM.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Page 18 of 25 6 February 2019

Please confirm the 36 pages allowed for Volume III need to cover the following topics:

• Introductory information

• Prime past performance material (in PPI tool format)

• Critical subcontractor past performance material (in PPI tool format)

• Joint Venture information

• Organizational Structure Change History

Please confirm the following are excluded from page count restrictions:

• Table of Contents, indexes, glossary

• Past Performance Questionnaire Contract Listing

• Consent Letters from all teammates

• Business relationships PPI tool output

Sec. L para. 2.1.D. states that "tables of…