SEI Questions and Gov Answers.pdf

Offerors Government

Q# Document Pg # Par. # Comment/Question Response

1 PWS 34 3.8.5

The RFP (section 3.8.5) states a “contractor shall identify, assess, plan for, and mitigate actual or potential threats, vulnerabilities, and disruptions to the Air Force's supply chain throughout the lifecycle to ensure mission effectiveness”. If a company wants to submit a proposal and does not have a supply chain risk plan to meet these criteria, can they still be selected for award? Essentially, does not having a supply chain risk management plan preclude a company from award or does it just make their proposal less desirable?

The Supply Chain Risk Management Plan is not required as part of the proposal nor is it a condition for award; it is a CDRL due after award, when applicable.

The SCRM is used to ensure trusted sources of supply for new components (or software) added to SWAK. It most cases, the SCRM will primarily be the OEMs supply chain risk management plan (flow-down requirement), as it is understood that the SE&I Prime will generally not be the OEM for SWAK components.

2 General How does the SWAK SE&I align with TACP-M Program?

The Special Warfare Program office at WPAFB executes the dismounted portion of the TACP Modernization program requirements (Mounted/Vehicle requirements are managed at Hanscom AFB). SE&I will not support TACP- Mod mounted/vehicle program requirements. The dismounted requirement includes the body worn kit, which is met with the SE&I-produced SWAK solution.

3 General How does the SE&I address updates to USSOCOM Policy about opening other Mesh/MANET technologies for unique mission requirements that require large amounts of bandwidth at the tactical edge?

SWAK does not currently have requirements to add any additional Mesh/MANET technologies to the kit.

4 General How does the SE&I plan to incorporate partner nation systems for interoperability during joint missions?

There is potential for FMS users of SWAK as there have been past users of our Kit (Tailored for releaseability to each specific customer). Requirements generally come from Bold Quest Risk reduction interoperability events and joint-staff-led Engineering Change Proposals. CLIN 0023 and PWS language in paragraph 3.19 support this requirement.

Section L

Attachment 2 1 Will the SE&I GFE list evolve to include the AERONet system? No, SWAK does not have a requirement to test with AERONet.

6 PWS 38 3.10.1.1.

New Equipment Training (NET): "The Contractor shall can conduct NET Training in a classroom, hands-on, or in scenario-based events for SW Operator and Mission Support personnel, as required by the Government."

Can the government define "mission support personnel (e.g. by AFSC)?

Is the level of training required for "mission support personnel" defined in the representative CFETP per AFSC (non-SW AFSC) or is the training required codified in unit level Operating Instructions and/or Support Personnel IQT /

MQT?

Is the intent of this paragraph to emphasize "SHALL" or "CAN?" It is assumed the word "can" is a typo.

The other personnel that will attend the class are radio maintenance or comm personnel that maintain the SWAK kits within the squadrons. The training for the mission support personnel is not defined by their AFSC, but is needed because of their position within the units to provide support to the operators and maintain all or parts of SWAK.

The can was a typo and has been removed from the updated document that will be part of the final RFP package.

7 PWS 39 3.10.2.

"Part Task Training shall provide a training course on a specified system component, or software and/or hardware updates to the system. Refresher or Part Task Training may be conducted at any SW unit location."

Does the government anticipate (under certain conditions) allowing the contractor to conduct "refresher training" virtually?

The location list has been updated and will be included with the final RFP.

The Government prefers in person training vs using virtual as a backup.

8 PWS 40 3.10.4.

Minimum Instructor Qualifications: "Minimum two (2) years of DoD formally documented teaching experience in classroom and hands-on delivery." What constitutes "formally documented teaching experience?"

Is this requirement meant to convey formal instructor courses such as BIC (or equivalent) as meeting the definition of "formally documented?" What constitutes "equivalent?" Could the following SW qualifications / SW backgrounds suffice as suitable: "JTAC-Instructor SEI 279, JTAC-Evaluator SEI 281, former 6CTS and/or FTU SW Cadre, etc.?

The PWS will be updated and clarified in the final RFP package.

9 PWS 41 3.13.2.

"The Contractor shall provide help desk support via telephone and email during normal business hours (0800-1700 EST) to resolve field technical issues and assist with operational implementation of SWAK with all systems covered under this contract."

Do these normal business hours apply to any unit (CONUS / OCONUS) regardless of time zone? (e.g., 0800 - 1700EST at the 14ASOS is 0300 - 1200 at the 25ASOS). This can become an issue with the next sentence: "The Contractor shall respond to phone and e-mail requests for support within four (4) business hours to begin consultation with the field user." (e.g., e-mail request for support from the 25ASOS after 1300 Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time).

PWS has been updated to reflect a requirement to respond within 24 hours.

10 PWS 42 3.13.3.

Field Service Representatives: "Locations are in Attachment 2 Training and FSR Locations." Did not see an ATTACHMENT 2, Training & FSR Locations. The only "attachment 2" was the SEI Section L, Attachment 2, GFP

The location list has been updated and will be included with the final RFP.

11 PWS 42 3.13.4.

"The contractor shall help develop training (at the weapons officer level) to support prototyping and development of Tactics, Techniques and Procedures

(TTPS)."

Can the government more clearly define "weapons officer level? It is assumed the government means to convey "SW Patch Wearers," e.g., Weapons School Graduates. At what level: HQ, MAJCOM, Unit, etc.?

The final RFP will remove the (at the weapons officer level) portions from the

PWS.

12 PWS 43 3.15.

"The Contractor shall provide engineering, integration, training, logistics, and technical expertise support for exercises and/or demonstrations." Can the government clarify the types of exercises / demonstrations to be supported (e.g., Named exercises such as JADED THUNDER, BOLD QUEST, etc.) or is the expectation, "At the Government's direction?" (e.g., any squadron, group, Wing, MAJCOM level local exercises).

What is the estimated number of exercises and the type of support required (e.g., scope of exercises, Live, Virtual, Constructive, etc.)?

Reference Section 4 "SE&I meetings" in the PWS

13 Section L 3

3.1 Table 1 &

3.7

Column 4 in proposal organization by volume indicates both a hard and electronic copy are required for submission, there are no instructions for delivery of hard copy. Will the government provide instructions for hard copy delivery (location, POC, etc.) or remove from table as a requirement?

No hard copies required - the instructions will be updated in final RFP package.

14 Section L 3 3.1 The Proposal Instructions specify both Electronic and Hardcopy submissions.

Given current COVID concerns and transportation issues, would the government consider removing the hardcopy requirement.

Yes, See answer to question #13.

15 Section L 9 4.2.4.1

TAK is a tool used across SOF, DoD and other federal agencies. The software development of interfaces depends on code used in an environment. The gate requiring development in DACAS is overly limiting and does not ensure the government will get the best value or most capable prime contractor. Will the government consider using development in same languages used in DACAS or similar TAK environments?

No, the government outlined the gate requirements in order to ensure the Offerors will be able to maintain the current SWAK baseline. Because the existing SWAK solution is dependent on the use of DACAS Tactical Data Networks, experience working with these specific networks is needed in order to ensure that the Offerors can successfully maintain the current software and integration baseline for SWAK.

16 Section L 9 4.2.4.1 How many qualified vendors are there that have developed interfaces or applications in the DACAS environment?

The Government's market research determined that there are enough qualified vendors to warrant full and open competition.

17 Section L 9 4.2.4.1 The DACAS environment gate is overly restrictive and would be better used as level of confidence for past performance vice a gate, will the government consider removing DACAS from the gate and move it to a criteria of confidence?

See answer to question #10.

18 Section L 12 4.2.5.6 Can a SB prime Offeror also be on a LB team? Can a LB prime be partnered with a SB prime?

Yes and yes.

19 Section L 15 4.4.1

The Proposal Instructions specify the use of the PPI tool for submitting Past Performance information. Since the Past Performance information is already submitted through the tool, it is unclear what is required in Volume IV Past Performance.

Use of the PPI tool is required. Submission of an additional narrative is allowed, but not required. Section L instructions will be updated in the final RFP to make this clear.

20 Section L 16 4.2.2.

Will the government consider changing the requirement for early submittal of Past Performance to 5 days before proposal due date vice 15 days?

The government has updated Section L to require the entire proposal to be due at the same time instead of the Past Performance information earlier than the rest of the proposal.

21 Section L 16 4.2.2.

Since the government is starting the review of Past Performance early, will the government provide contractors their gate review evaluation results before or after proposal submission deadline?

The Government is no longer requiring that the Past Performance information be submitted separately or earlier than the rest of the proposal.

22 Section L 16 4.4.2 Would the government consider accepting CPARS in lieu of PPQs? This would reduce the burden on government officials who are frequently asked to complete these forms.

CPARS and PPQs will be reviewed as stated in Section L.

23 Section M 2 2.0.1

The requirement that "Proposals will be evaluated for demonstrated experience developing Digitally Aided Close Air Support (DACAS) software in the TAK environment" eliminates all other software development experience that will enable an Offeror to successfully modernize and sustain the Special Warfare (SW) Assault Kit (SWAK). This statement artificially and unnecessarily constrains competition and is not to the best interest of the Government. For example, an Offeror with TAK environment understanding and with Agile DevSecOps software development experience for software with a similar code base, architecture, and complexity as DACAS may provide better performance than the incumbent contractor.

Because the existing SWAK solution is dependent on the use of DACAS Tactical Data Networks, experience working with these specific networks is needed in order to ensure that the Offerors can successfully maintain the current software and integration baseline for SWAK.

24 Section M 2 2.0.1

The requirement that "the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates at least six months recent experience (within last five years) in DACAS development in the TAK environment, developing solutions for at least one of the networks listed in SE&I Section L Attachment 3 SE&I Primary DACAS Tactical Data Networks" eliminates all other developed solutions that will enable an Offeror to successfully modernize and sustain the Special Warfare (SW) Assault Kit (SWAK). This statement artificially and unnecessarily constrains competition and is not to the best interest of the Government.

The SE&I competition is not seeking a new solution. The winning Offeror of this contract will be required to sustain SWAK with the existing capabilities. These networks are driven by customer requirements and must be maintained. Because the existing SWAK solution is dependent on the use of DACAS Tactical Data Networks, experience working with these specific networks is needed in order to ensure that the Offerors can successfully maintain the current software and integration baseline for SWAK.

25 Section M 4 2.2.2

The Assessment of Technical Risk based on "manifested by the identification of weakness(es)" appears as if weaknesses will be double counted as part of Technical Rating and as part of Technical Risk. This is an unfair analytical practice. The RFP should use a more holistic process for assessing potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. A holistic process considers the Offeror's entire approach and processes to determine whether strengthens and specific processes can overcome the risks introduced by weaknesses.

The procedures in the SE&I Section M are consistent with long-standing DoD Source Selection procedures, and the Evaluation tables and methodology are unchanged from the DoD Procedures. While a failure to address a Measure of merit could also induce a risk, the assessments are distinct, in accordance with the criteria in Tables 2B and 2C. It is possible to meet a measure of merit and still have risk in the approach.

26 Section M 5 Table 2D

The Government best practice definition for "Acceptable" is a Subfactor with no Significant Deficiencies or large number of Weaknesses. Simply stating that "Acceptable" means "Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation." is too vague and opens the evaluation up to highly subjective and potentially biased determinations.

The verbiage in Table 2D is from the Mandatory DoD Source Selection Procedures and is not altered for the SE&I RFP. This table only applies to Pass/Fail criteria, not those where weaknesses are considered to come up with a weighted score (where Table 2C applies).

27 Section M 8

2.3.2 and

2.3.3

It is highly unusual for both Cost Realism and Reasonableness clauses to in one RFP. Typically, if there is no reliable basis for estimate, Cost Realism is not merited. Given the complex market dynamics since COVID 19, we feel that historical data for work in this RFP is no longer reliable. We recommend dropping the Cost Realism clause and evaluate base on Cost Reasonableness.

The Government will require both cost realism and reasonableness. The government does take current circumstances into consideration.

28 General General General When does the Government intend to release the complete CDRL list with associated DIDs and delivery requirements? This is required to support the cost estimates and scheduling.

This will be released with the Final RFP.

29 General General General

Since the Government expects to award an ID/IQ contract and there are many requirements that transcend any specific SWAK Software Suite application, how does the Government plan to authorize these kinds of "continuous" efforts? Is the Government considering an annual Task Order for Engineering Services in addition to individual orders for specific SWAK application?

This will be clarified in the Final RFP package

30 General General General

The scope and frequency of work described in the PWS aligns for more closely to a traditional waterfall development model, as opposed to a DevSecOps model.

Will the Government review the PWS requirements and consider updating it to better align with whichever method is desired? As written, delivering SW capability for any mission set at the "speed of need" is in jeopardy.

The Government does not intend to dictate the development model that the offerors can propose in order to meet the requirements of the PWS. Section 3.3 outlines the software development requirements.

31 General General General The SAM notice for this requirement indicates a Place of Performance as Wright Patterson AFB, OH. Does the Government require the Offeror to establish a location in Dayton, OH or elsewhere from which the program will be managed?

No, the program office is located at Wright-Patterson AFB and the contract will be managed from that location. The offerors are not required to establish a location in Dayton, OH.

32 General General General Is the decision to use a NAICS Code of 541512 (Computer Systems Design Services) final?

Yes.

33 PWS 12 3.1.1.1

Does the Government envision this key position to be primarily technical (e.g., a chief engineer) or is this position more management (e.g., project manager)?

Per the requirements in PWS paragraph 3.1.1.1, the overarching responsibility is project management.

34 PWS 13 3.1.1.2

The Government lists several "desired skills and attributes" for the Software Development Lead in this section, including knowledge of Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level III best practices. Will the Government require the Contractor (or its subcontractors) to possess any corporate CMMI certifications?

PWS paragraph 3.1.5 now states: "The Contractor shall possess a SCAMPI Class B Appraisal for software development of Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 or better, or an equivalent. The Contractor shall demonstrate compliance with a quality management system using ISO 9001 (2015) or an equivalent."

35 PWS 14 3.1.1.2

The Government lists several "desired skills and attributes" for the Software Development Lead in this section including several Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) certifications. Will the Government require the Contractor (or its subcontractors) to possess any corporate SAFe certifications?

No, this is only a desired skill for the Software Developer Lead.

36 PWS 14 3.1.1.5

Does the Government expect the proposed key personnel to remain on the entire program (i.e., POP + Options)? Knowing this could be up to 10 years, it will be difficult to keep a person in a single position that long. Given the Government reserves sole authority to approve substitution but threat of default, this presents great risk to offerors. Would the Government consider levying the KP requirement at the TOR level? It is at that level where the true requirements of these positions is know; particularly the individual trainers.

The PWS has been updated to reflect desire to be assigned for the duration of task orders and will be included in the Final RFP package.

37 PWS 15 3.1.3

Can the Government clarify the statement, "All cost associated with the agreements are included in the negotiated cost of this contract"? We interpret this to mean that any ACA cost are consider after successful award notification and prior to final awarded price. Is this a correct assumption?

ACA costs do not need to be included in the proposal and will be addressed post award.

38 PWS 15 3.1.3

Where is the TISC located and would the Government provide a cognizant point of contact?

The TISC is located in NW Florida (new location being determined currently).

Any specific TISC questions need to come through the government and POCs will be provided upon contract award.

39 PWS 16 3.1.3

There is an unlabeled and referenced table of items in this section. How is the Offeror to use this to prepare their proposal?

The table will be updated with a label. It provides a list of current suppliers of SWAK components that the SE&I Prime may have to conduct business with, and as such, may require an ACA.

40 PWS 17 3.1.5

If the PRIME Offeror has the required ISO 9001:2015 certification or an equivalent, is that sufficient to meet this requirement?

Yes.

41 PWS 17 3.1.5

Regarding the reference to CMMI Dev/3, this should be noted as an accreditation, not a certification. Can this requirement be satisfied by the teammate assigned the Software Development responsibility?

The language will be updated in the PWS. Yes, a teammate accomplishing the Software Development possessing a CMMI Level 3 or better would satisfy this requirement.

42 PWS 20 3.2.2

The SWAK System Requirements Documents (SRDs) is referenced but has not been provided for review. When will offerors have access to this document?

Does the Government plan to set up a user controlled Bidders Library for this and other such documents?

The SWAK SRD will not be required for bidding, as the government will not be evaluating solutions in this solicitation. Applicable requirements will be provided after award as required to further modernize SWAK.

43 PWS 20 3.2.4

Is there an existing Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness (OSS&E) from which offerors will work from? When will it be provided?

There is an existing OSS&E Baseline Document (OBD). This is government-authored document and the Government does not intend to provide the OBD to the vendors. The Prime will only provide supporting data and input for the OBD.

44 PWS 20 3.2.4

The reference to AFMCI63-1201 Appendix A, Section 3.5 cannot be found in the 28 MARCH 2017 revision. Can the Government cite the document where the reference can be found?

The Correct Appendix is Appendix 3, this will be updated in the PWS in the final RFP package.

45 PWS 21 3.2.5

The Government lists four requirements sources here. For estimating the effort for each, can the Government provide the estimated frequency of 1067’s and RWS’s?

The sample SWAK task in Section L is representative of a typical set of software releases driven by these requirement sources. The Government manages those requirements documents and translates those into tasks/priorities for future SWAK releases.

46 PWS 21 3.2.6

Can the Government provide the GiG Technical Guidance Federation (GTG-F) system architecture models (DoDAF views) or provide the contract number and sponsor information so that we can download the file(s) ourselves?

System architecture models will be provided after award as required.

47 PWS 21 3.2.7.1

How should the Offeror estimate "continuous market research (as directed by the Government)"? Is it envisioned that each task order will have it's own requirement for market research? Offerors must know how much effort to estimate.

The PWS will be updated in the final RFP package. The word continuous has been removed. The expectation is that market research for particular items will be at the direction of the government.

48 PWS 22 3.3

To fulfill the requirements of this section, does the Government anticipate using any of the existing AF Software Factories? If so, which ones? Will offerors be granted access to work at these locations?

No, the program office does not anticipate using any existing AF Software Factories.

49 PWS 22 3.3.1

What software is currently used in the TAK Enterprise dev community for

CI/CD?

TAK Enterprise currently uses Fortify/Coverity.

50 PWS 22 3.3.1 Is there a preferred software language (i.e., Java, Kotlin, C++, C#, Python)? No, the examples given in the PWS are all relevant.

51 PWS 22 3.3.1

Bullet #5. Would the Government delineate or define what a "validated software development platforms" is as it relates to this requirement?

PWS language will be updated in the Final RFP package.

52 PWS 22 3.3.1

The Government lists the requirement to "create automated test cases/environments to enable continuous (and secure) integration,". Does the Government require contractors to possess demonstrated past performance/capability to perform Test Driven Development (TDD) as part of this requirement?

Demonstration of the capability is not required, but related to relevance.

53 PWS 23 3.3.1

Can the Government clarify the requirement to deliver "for each application within the SWAK Software Suite" the eight documents listed in the bulleted list (Software Development Plan (SDP), Supplier’s Configuration Management Plan (SCMP), Software Architecture Description (SWARD), Interface Design Description (IDD), Software Version Description (SVD), Test Plan, User Guides, Training Guides)? Maintaining all this documentation for each application in the SWAK Software Suite is expected to be a substantial effort.

The Government's intention is not to require all documents for each release and the frequency for these CDRLs are "as required" and will be identified during the planning stages of each release. For example, a release that does not include changes for any new hardware or make changes to the architecture would not require a SWARD update.

54 PWS 23 3.3.1

Will the Government provide to offerors fall of the current SWAK Software Suite baseline documentation listed in the bulleted list: (Software Development Plan (SDP), Supplier’s Configuration Management Plan (SCMP), Software Architecture Description (SWARD), Interface Design Description IDD, Software Version Description (SVD), Test Plan, User guides, Training guides) for evaluation purposes?

The offerors should expect to build from scratch, the documents; Software Development Plan (SDP), Suppliers Configuration Management Plan (SCMP), Software Architecture Description (SWARD) and Interface Design Description (IDD), these documents are new requirements, and do not currently exist.

For the remaining documents, the government has full data rights to and they will be made available at award.

55 PWS 23 3.3.1

Does the Government have a preference for the software configuration management (tracking) tool/versioning system?

There is no Contractor tracking tool/versioning system preference.

56 PWS 23 3.3.1

Does the Government have a preference for the software deficiency taking system? What system is being used today (if any)?

The Government does not have a preference for a software deficiency tracking tool. Deficiencies need to be reported IAW PWS paragraph 3.6.4 and CDRL A023, DI-PSSS-81535A “Deficiency Report.” The government will take information from that CDRL and update the SWAK information in the Joint Deficiency Reporting System (JDRS).

57 PWS 23 3.3.1

Regarding the eight documents referenced in this section, this requirement appears to be in conflict with Agile, DevSecOps approach required. Can the Government verify that they require both development models to be used?

The Government is not dictating a development model (agile vs. waterfall). The Government may require all or some of documents for each release. The frequency for these CDRLs are "as required" and will be identified if they are needed during the planning stages of each release to ensure we properly document the updates to the SWAK baseline.

58 PWS 23 3.3.1

As part of the requirement to use Open Technology Development (OTD), what is the approval process for using Open standards, open source software?

The approval process is part of the development and testing cycle which is approved through the Configuration Control Board (CCB).

59 PWS 24 3.3.3 Can the Government define what is meant by the "Software Suite Core"?

Clarifying language has been added to the PWS. The Software Suite Core refers to the use of Android operating system. An example is that we have previous transitioned from a Windows OS to an Android OS as the core.

60 PWS 24 3.4.1

What are the "risk assessment tools provided by the SW Branch and the Authorizing Official (AO) office" that are required to be used IAW RMF?

ASSURANT and Blade Risk Manager are two risk assessment tools that are currently provided by the AO office. The AO's office is open to other risk assessment tools that enable model based systems engineering authorizations and machine readable tables.

61 PWS 24 3.4.1

Paragraph #2. Would the Government explain what is meant by the statement:

"The contractor shall align DevSecOps processes with multiple, external system development programs (i.e. software and hardware)"?

There are multiple technology initiatives that will need to be integrated and aligned, as necessary, in future SWAK releases. The PWS has been updated to include several of these examples: "The contractor shall align DevSecOps processes with multiple, external system development programs (i.e. software and hardware). This includes but is not limited to BADL software development, ATAK software updates from the TAK Product Center, multiple SBIRS and AFRL projects that require integration of hardware or software plug-ins with SWAK, and the MDM/MCM Cloud 1 servers that hosts the SWAK software."

62 PWS 24 3.4.1

Paragraph #2. Can the Government provide a list of the risk assessment tools referenced by the statement: "utilizing risk assessment tools provided by the SW Branch and the Authorizing Official (AO) office"?

ASSURANT and Blade Risk Manager are two risk assessment tools that are currently provided by the AO office. The AO's office is open to other risk assessment tools that enable model based systems engineering authorizations and machine readable tables.

63 PWS 25 3.4.2

How will the Government provide HSI approval? In a DevSecOps methodology, the approval is theoretically given by the persons providing both the Security and Operations perspective as the product is developed/matured. Does the Government envision some other approval authority as well (e.g., HSI Working Group, TAK Office coordination)?

HSI impacts are evaluated by the SWAK IPT including engineering, SMEs and government test personnel. These will be evaluated as part of the process to approve requirements/changes in new SWAK releases as well as during the verification and validation during test events.

64 PWS 27 3.6.2.1

Would the Government explain their vision for IPRs within a DevSecOps environment, since the builds are always "in process" and under continuous development?

This has been removed from the PWS in the final RFP package.

65 PWS 28 3.6.5 Is the reference to "CMP" the same as the SCMP described in section 3.6.1?

Yes; currently, the PWS reflects the same (SCMP) CDRL deliverable in both sections. The PWS will be updated in the final RFP package to state SCMP.

66 PWS 28 3.6.5

Can the Government clarify the following statement: "The Contractor shall have and maintain Directorate of Defense Trade Controls registration in accordance with the ITAR compliance for exported shipments of United States defense and military technologies."? Does such a data item exist today to be provided GFI to awardee to maintain? Is the awardee expected to obtain DDTC registration for baseline items?

The Arms Export Control Act requires all manufacturers, exporters, temporary importers, and brokers of defense articles and furnishers of defense services to register with the DDTC (as described in ITAR part 122; part 121 for U.S.

Munitions List, part 129 for brokers).

67 PWS 30 3.6.5 Typo in last paragraph: "scurity" should be "security". Corrected.

68 PWS 30 3.7

Can the Government resolve the 404 error when attempting to access the link to Software Assurance Countermeasures --https://www.acq.osd.mil/se/docs/SwA- CM-in-PPP.pdf ?

Corrected. https://ac.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SwA-CM-in-PPP.pdf

69 PWS 30 3.7

Will the Government be providing the static source code scan software or is this a requirement of the Contractor?

The Contractor may be able to utilize Fortify and GitLab through the TAK Product Center for some source code scanning, however, a separate Fortify license may be necessary and will not be provided by the Government.

70 PWS 28-30 3.7

Will the Government require the Contractor to have access to EMASS or other RFM submission systems on the SIPRNet? If so, will a SIPRNet connection be provided at the Contractor's facility?

Currently, the Aircraft AO does not require eMASS packages, however, other AO’s/AFSOC may require the use of eMASS. Instructions for SIPRNet requirements will be included on the DD254 with the final RFP package.

71 PWS 31 3.8

Can the Government provide the DD-254 soonest so offerors can asses the COMSEC requirements? Will the Government be sponsoring the COMSEC account or must Offerors already have one?

The DD-254 will be provided with the final RFP. The Government can sponsor COMSEC accounts if the Offeror does not currently have one.

72 PWS 32 3.8.1

Can the Government confirm the CDRL name for A025, DI-MGMT-81826D/T “F/A-18 and EA-18 Aircraft/System Program Protection Implementation Plan" as the CDRL name?

That is the actual DID title. CDRL instructions tailor the DID for the SE&I effort.

73 PWS 32 3.8.1 Where is SWAK penetration testing to be conducted?

The PWS has been updated to state: "The Contractor shall support penetration testing conducted by the Government (e.g. 47th Cybersecurity Testing Squadron) when required by the AO."

74 PWS 33 3.8.2

The fifth paragraph references the DD-254 for compliance with facility security requirements. When will the Government issue the DD-254 to allow offerors to asses their compliance?

The DD-254 will be delivered with the final RFP.

75 PWS 36 3.9

Will the Government make available via DoD SAFE (or otherwise) the Battlefield Airmen Family of Systems Capabilities Development Document (CDD) for use in fully understand the requirements of PWS section 3.9?

No.

76 PWS 37 3.9

The PWS Attachment 1 (Travel Summary) referenced here cannot be found. The Attachment 1 that was provided is entitled "SE&I Meetings". Are these one in the same?

Yes, the title was wrong in this section and the PWS has been updated.

77 PWS 37 3.10.1

Will the Government be providing to the awardee as GFI any and all existing SWAK Suite training materials?

Yes.

78 PWS 40 3.10.4

The requirements for trainers are very explicit and unique, and per Sec. M, 4.2.5.3.2, are to be designated as Key Personnel. Given an IDIQ contract is contemplated and we do not know what the tasks order are at this time, how will offerors know (a) how many trainers are needed and (b) what special capabilities/resumes should be provided? How does the Government intend to evaluate Subfactor 3 unless without specific training needs identified? Should the requirement to staff trainers be at the task order level and not at the prime IDIQ proposal level?

Frequency of training events has been estimated and Section L, Attachment 9.

This will be included in the final RFP.

79 PWS 40 3.10.5

There is a reference to "SW enterprise simulators as required". Can the Government delineate them, describe them, include a location for each, and provide a valid PoC?

There are currently not any simulators that integrate with SWAK. This reference is for the potential emerging requirement(s) if any of those simulators formally request integration with SWAK.

80 PWS 40 3.11.1

Is the Offeror restricted to only those company supporting the SW MAC and ICP contracts for SWAK EUD procurement? Also, there are no phones or tables included in this list. Could those EUDs become part of a future task order?

No, there is no requirement to use the SW MAC and/or ICP contracts for EUD procurement.

The list is only accessories to accompany the phones and tablets. The wording of this paragraph has been updated in the PWS to reflect the need to purchase EUDs as well as the accessories.

81 PWS 40 3.17

In the third paragraph of the GFP section, the Government references the FAR and DFAR clauses of the US Army RS3 basic IDIQ contract. Can the Government confirm these are correct references?

This was an incorrect reference and will be corrected in the final RFP package.

82 PWS 41 3.13.2

For Help Desk support, will the Government be providing one or more ITIL compliant Service Level Agreements (SLAs) in a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) or other document? Can the Government identify the tier levels expected to be supported?

The Government has changed this requirement to be a "less formal" technical support instead of an official help desk. Updated language will be included in the final RFP package in the PWS. There will no longer be a separate task order for help desk support and the requirement for responding to inquiries will be 24 hours.

83 PWS 42 3.13.3

Attachment 2 Training and FSR Locations is cited but not included with DRFP release. When does the Government intend to provide this attachment to the offerors?

This will be released with the Final RFP

84 PWS 42 3.13.4

Three ASOS locations are listed here. Can the Government add these to Attachment 1 to include the number of people to travel and annual frequency to allow offerors' to correctly estimate this effort?

The expectation is 1 FTE per location.

85 PWS 43 3.14

Not knowing the actual scope of the SE ICP contract, it seems that SWAK spare management would fall under that contract and the SE&I Prime would deliver any required spares to the ICP facility. Can the Government confirm their intention to also have the SE&I PRIME hold and manage SWAK spares?

The SE&I Prime will not procure full production quantities of any devices except EUDs (and EUD accessories). The PWS will be updated in the Final RFP package.

86 PWS 45 3.17.1

The reference to PWS 3.1.2 for GFP appears to be incorrect. There is an unnumbered Table in the area of Sec. 3.1.2 but it is not clear whether these are the GFP items. Can the Government cite the correct reference to the GFP list?

This will be corrected to reflect the table in paragraph 3.1.3.

87 PWS 13 3.1.1.2

The Government lists several desired skills and attributes for the Software Development Lead in this section, including knowledge of Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) best practices. Will the Government require the Contractor, and its subcontractors, to possess any corporate ITIL certifications?

No, these are only desired skills, not requirements.

88 PWS 22 3.3.1

Can the Government identify the validated software development platforms that align with the TAK Enterprise’s development community and that permit continuous integration and evaluation?

The PWS has been updated to state "compatible" vs "validated" and the list of software development platforms will not be provided by the Government.

89 PWS 25 3.5

Given the nature of this requirement, will the Government require Contactors (or their subcontractors) to have lab facilities available to satisfy this requirement?

No, the Government will not require Offerors to have lab facilities.

90 PWS 42

Section 3.13.4

Given the nature of this requirement, will the Government require Contactors (or their subcontractors) to have lab facilities available to satisfy this requirement?

Additionally, will the Government consider allowing support to this requirement at locations other than those identified in the PWS (i.e., remote support)?

No, the Government will not require Offerors to have lab facilities.

This support is required at the specific locations.

91 Section L 12 4.2.5.6.1 (h) What is the NAICS code for this solicitation and will this be an unrestricted competition?

NAICS Code = 541512 Yes, it will be an unrestricted competition.

92 Section L 14 4.3.2.2 (2) System Integration Laboratories (SILs) are referenced in the GFP discussion.

Would the Government identify the facilities that are part of this requirement?

This section has been updated in Section L that will be provided with the Final RFP and there are no longer references to System Integration Laboratories in Section L.

93 Section L 19 4.5.1.6 Should the paragraph reference be changed to 4.5.1.7.6? The paragraph should be 4.5.1.8.

94 Section L 20 4.5.3.4 Is this paragraph intentional left out? No, paragraphs were incorrectly numbered.

95 Section L 4 & 14

3.2 & 4.3.2.2

Attachment 5 (Pricing Matrix) is referenced but not provided with the solicitation documents. When will the Government provide this attachment?

The Cost Formats will be included in the final RFP.

96 Section L 6 3.7 Can the Government confirm there still needs to be a copy number on the bound proposal volumes even though one hardcopy is required for submission?

Hardcopies will no longer be required IAW the final RFP package.

97 Section L 11 4.2.5.6.1 MoM #1 references "... The attached model Task Orders.". There were not task orders released with the DRFP documents. When will the Government be providing the model task orders referred to in this section?

Model Task Orders are listed in Section L, Attachment 9 in the final RFP package.

98 Section L 11 4.2.5.6.1

MoM #1 has the following sentence. "The SBPCD is separate from the Subcontracting Plan required by FAR 19.704." Is the Government also requiring a FAR 19.704 Subcontracting Plan or is the SBCPD sufficient to meet this MoM?

They are different documents and both are required.

99 Section L 11 4.2.5.6.1. a-e

The required information for the SBPCP is not attainable given (a) this will be an IDIQ task order deal which by definition does not have all the work stated at the IDIQ level, and (b) the cited "model tasks orders" have not been provided yet to the offerors for an understanding of their scope. Would the Government consider making the details of SB participation part of the Task Order RFQ and not at the IDIQ level?

Model Task Orders are listed in Section L, Attachment 9 in the final RFP package.

100 Section L 15 4.4.1 Are the Business Relationships and Past Performance documents to be scanned and dropped into the Past Performance Volume (both hard and soft copy)?

Yes (no hard copies).

101 Section L 15 4.4.1 Is there any narrative required in the Past Performance Volume other than the information being printed out from the PPI Tool?

Offerors may add narrative IAW updated language in Section L paragraph 4.4.3.

Section L

Attachment 2

GFP

General All The Government states the GFP facilities and equipment listed within will be made available to offerors in advance of proposal receipt. Con the Government provide the intended method/process by which offerors can request a visit?

Yes, contact information and process will be included in the Final RFP.

103 Section M 2 2.0.1, Table

2A

Does the evaluation gate criteria apply at the total offer level (i.e., prime plus their teammates)? If so, can the Government confirm that if one or more of the teammates provide the required experience, the evaluation would be the same as if the prime alone had the experience?

The Evaluation is assessed against the offerors proposed team/experience, not just the Prime's Past Performance.

104 Section M 2 2.0.1, Table

2A

The Acceptable description includes three aspects, (1) DACAS Software, (2) network solutions, and (3) Joint Interoperability. Will an Offeror be rated ACCEPTABLE if the demonstrate only 1 or 2 of these or are all three required?

The Offeror will be rated ACCEPTABLE if they demonstrate all 3 of these aspects in relation to DACAS development in the TAK environment.

SEI Section L Attachment 2

GFP

General General

Will offerors be allowed to visit/tour the WPAFB Bldg., Room 212 facility prior to the final RFP? If so, can the Government provide instructions on how to do so?

No. This is not required as the location is utilized just for storage and is not part of any of the evaluation factors.

SEI Section L Attachment 4

Model Contract General Sec. B CLINs

Would the Government consider using plug numbers for all the ODC CLINs, thus allowing the proposal price evaluation to focus on the CPFF/recurring tasks?

Yes.

SEI Section L Attachment 4

Model Contract General Sec. B CLINs

For COST CLINs 0010-0015 where services are being provided, will the Government accept these as Fee bearing?

These CLINs will be updated in the Final RFP package. The training CLINS will be Cost Plus Fixed Fee and FSR support CLINS will be Firm Fixed Price.

108 SEI Section M 6 2.2.4 As a replacement for the NSA-certified Type One DACAS radio, will the Government allow NSA CSfC approved alternatives?

No. This is not required as the location is utilized just for storage and is not part of any of the evaluation factors.

109 SEI Section M 9 2.3.5.1

In Sec M under TEP discussion, para's 2.3.5.1 through 2.3.5.10 define specific Task Orders that reference CLINs which do not exist in the Model Contract.

Since the 10 T.O.'s are not referenced anywhere else in the Draft solicitation, and there are no instructions in Section L 4.2.5 that require the Offeror to write about these T.O.'s, can the Government explain how the evaluation will be made?

Yes, the instructions will be provided in the final RFP package.

110 SEI Section M 9 2.3.5.1 In Sec M under TEP discussion, para's 2.3.5.1 through 2.3.5.10 define specific Task Orders that reference CLINs which do not exist in the Model Contract.

Where are the referenced CLINs, Axxxx, to be found?

Yes, the instructions will be provided in the final RFP package.

111 SEI Section M 9 2.3.5.1

In Sec M under TEP discussion, para's 2.3.5.1 through 2.3.5.10 define specific Task Orders that reference CLINs which do not exist in the Model Contract. Is the Government planning to update Section L to provide instructions on how offerors are to respond to these task orders?

Yes, the instructions will be provided in the final RFP package.

SEI, Section

L&M

4.2.5.4, 4.2.5.4.1

This section states that the "proposal should identify processes and procedures that align with current TAK Enterprise development standards and common/best practices". In order to level the competitive playing field, will the Government be publishing a technical bidder's library that details these specific standards and best practices?

No, this information will not be part of a bidder's library.

113 Model Contract 3 to 4

All of these CLINs (i.e., 0010 - 0015 and their option year CLINs as well) have a contract type of "S-Cost". Based on the CLIN description it appears that these are labor services CLINs. Can the Government confirm that the contract type should be "U - Cost Plus Fixed Fee"?

This will be reviewed and corrected in the final RFP package.

114 PWS 15 3.1.3

Can the Government confirm that Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) are not required to be submitted with the offerors proposal?

Yes.

115 PWS 15 3.1.3

Can the Government confirm that the review and execution of any/all required ACA's will be a post-award activity when joint participation with the Contractor(s) identified is required, and is at no additional cost to the Government?

Yes, See answer to question 37.

116 General General General When does the Government anticipate releasing the final RFP? The final RFP will be released by the end February and mid-March 2022.

117 Section L 4 to 5 3.2, pp. 4 - 5 Are offerors free to define their own labor categories? Does the Government require descriptions of each labor category and required qualifications to be provided with the cost volume?

Yes, Offerors can provide labor categories and Section L will be updated with further details.

118 Section L 6 3.7, p. 6

Would the Government consider revising the delivery instructions to be electronic delivery only? Producing hard copy volumes reduces the time required to prepare the proposal response, and requires production in corporate facilities (increasing COVID transmission risk).

Yes, See answer to question #13.

119 Section L 11 4.2.5.6, p. 11 We recommend requiring submission of teaming agreements with the proposal to validate prime contractor estimates of small business participation.

No, the Government is going to use the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) per sub-factor 6.

120 Section L 13 4.3.2.1 For pricing purposes, what date shall offerors assume for the start of each task order?

The Final RFP package will be updated with project start date of 3 Oct 2022

(FY23).

121 Section L 13 4.3.2.1, Item

(11)

Is the IMS mentioned in this section the same IMS to be provided with the Technical Volume? That IMS is for a specific sample task, whereas this IMS appears to be broader. Are all task orders defined in Section M required to be included?

An IMS is only required for Sample SWAK task in Volume II. An IMS is no longer required for Volume III.

122 Section L 13 4.3.2.1, Item

(2)

Given that an IDIQ contract is anticipated, with only some task orders to be priced, how will the overall contract ceiling be determined? What is the anticipated contract ceiling for this opportunity?

The anticipated ceiling is based on historical data combined with Government cost estimates of new scope.

The ceiling will be finalized at contract award, which may exclude some of the priced CLINs.

123 Section L 16 4.4.2 To facilitate prompt completion and return of PPQs, may offerors complete Section 1 of the questionnaire, prior to providing it to points of contact?

Yes, contractors will be allowed to complete section 1, to ease the workload on government offices.

124 Section L 16 4.4.2 Many Government personnel decline to complete PPQs for contracts with current CPAR assessments in PPIRS. Would the Government consider amending the requirement for PPQs to be submitted only for contracts without current CPARs?

No, PPQs will be reviewed as well as CPARs.

125 Section L 16 4.4.2 For clarification, may offerors submit a maximum of 5 past performance references for the entire team (prime plus teammates), or is the limit 5 from the prime PLUS 2 from teammates?

Offerors may submit 5 total references where 2 of the 5 include teaming partners and/or subcontractors per paragraph 4.4.3.

Section L, Attachment 2 General

General Instructions

Please provide instructions for gaining access to the hardware and software listed, which the Government has indicated will be made available to offerors prior to proposal submission.

Attachment 2 will be updated in the Final RFP. PWS paragraph 3.1.3 lists the anticipated equipment available.

Section L, Attachment 7 4 Item 10

Instructions for use of the PPI tool require offerors to identify the percentage of contract value allocated to each teammate submitting past performance information. Per Section L, the PPI Tool information is required to be submitted 15 days prior to the proposal due date. However, pricing will not be finalized at that point, so an accurate percentage of contract value cannot be calculated. We request that either: 1) this field be made optional in the PPI and the percentage of contract value for each teammate be included with the cost volume, or 2) Allow this field to be updated in the PPI tool once pricing is final.

The Government will change due dates for all parts of proposal to be the same date in the Final RFP package.

128 Model Contract 3 to 4 Labor CLINs 0010 - 0012 and 0013 - 0015 are currently shown as Cost Reimbursable. We recommend that these CLINs be Cost Plus Fixed Fee.

These CLINs will be updated in the Final RFP package.