Soaring Otter QA Updated 19 Feb 2021.pdf

BAA Solicitation Q&As

FA8650-21-S-1017

Soaring Otter Questions (Q) and Answers (A)

Updated 19 February 2021

1) Q: Will this be a Small Business set aside under NAICS Code 541715?

A: This effort is solicited as Full and Open competition.

2) Q: Does the Basic assessment required by DFARS 252.204-7019 and 7020 need to be completed by the time of proposal submittal or by date of contract award?

A: Per DFARS 252.204-7019(b), in order to be considered for award… the Offeror shall have a current assessment (i.e., not more than 3 years old unless a lesser time is specified in the solicitation) (see 252.204-7020) for each covered contractor information system that is relevant to the offer, contract, task order, or delivery order.

If an offeror is selected for award, the following guidelines apply:

1. Per DFARS 204.7302(a)(2), Contractors required to implement NIST SP 800-171…are required at time of award to have at least a Basic NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment that is current, per

DFARS 252.204-7019.

2. Per DFARS 204.7303(b), the CO shall verify that the summary level score of a current NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment…are posted to SPRS prior to awarding a contract, task order, or delivery order.

It is important to note that the summary level score for the assessment in SPRS is verified prior to award, not at the time of proposal receipt. Per DFARS 252.204-7019(d), summary level assessment scores can take up to 30 days to be posted in SPRS, which may cause a delay in award.

3) Q: Is full 100% compliance of NIST 800-171 mandatory for eligibility for award or will a Basic

Assessment which outlines controls not already in compliance with POAM to reach full compliance still acceptable?

A: IAW DFARS 252.204-7012(b)(2)(i), “Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this clause, the covered contractor information system shall be subject to the security requirements in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations” (available via the internet at http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171).”

- The summary level score takes into account items that the Contractor is not currently complying with per the NIST SP 800-171 requirements. A basic assessment is the Contractor’s self-assessment of their NIST SP 800-171 implementation status based on a review of the system security plan(s) associated with covered contractor information system(s). The score can be up to 110 points, so for each instance where they have a plan for something but are not yet http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171 implementing it (so technically not in compliance with that item), they would have to deduct points.

- Potential offerors should review the “NIST SP 800-171 Assessment Methodology Version 1.2.1.”

at https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/cyber/docs/NIST%20SP%20800- 171%20Assessment%20Methodology%20Version%201.2.1%20%206.24.2020.pdf. Section 5 in particular details how the scoring works and Annex A has the scoring template with all the applicable items to be scored. The below excerpts are from the assessment methodology document.

- If implementation of the security requirements is not complete, companies must develop and implement plans of action to describe when and how any unimplemented security requirements will be met.

- Conduct of the NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment will result in a score reflecting the net effect of security requirements not yet implemented. If all security requirements are implemented, a contractor is awarded a score of 110, consistent with the total number of NIST SP 800-171 security requirements. For each security requirement not met, the associated value is subtracted from 110. The score of 110 is reduced by each requirement not implemented, which may result in a negative score.

- Plans of action addressing unimplemented security requirements are not a substitute for a completed requirement. Security requirements not implemented, whether a plan of action is in place or not, will be assessed as ‘not implemented.’

- A contractor may post the results of their Basic Assessments conducted in accordance with Section 5 and Annex B of this document in SPRS (via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE)).

4) Q: Is this truly a new offering, or is this a combination of previous contracts, or a rename of an existing?

A: There is a contractor currently working in some of these areas that this contract would be taking over for. However, this effort is not a true follow-on.

5) Q: Under Type of Contract/Instrument on page 2 of the BAA, it states “It is anticipated that awards under this BAA will generally be Cost or Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF).” Will any other contract types, such as Firm Fixed Price, be considered?

A: The Government is anticipating a Cost or Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) award. Fixed price contract types will not be considered.

6) Q: Under Type of Contract/Instrument on page 2 of the BAA, it states “the Government may award any appropriate contract type under the FAR or Other Transaction (OT) for Prototype or OT for Research.” Is the intent for the offeror to propose which contract type they prefer and/or will accept?

https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/cyber/docs/NIST%20SP%20800-171%20Assessment%20Methodology%20Version%201.2.1%20%206.24.2020.pdf https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/cyber/docs/NIST%20SP%20800-171%20Assessment%20Methodology%20Version%201.2.1%20%206.24.2020.pdf

A: The Government is not anticipating an OT award. However, the Government reserves the right, to award any contract type that is appropriate.

7) Q: If an OT is awarded, how will this impact the terms and conditions in the model contract in

Attachment 1, specifically the FAR clauses that are generally not included in an OT contract?

A: If an OT is awarded, the Terms and Conditions would be negotiated/agreed upon prior to award.

See Q&A for #6 and #7, in reference to OT and the anticipated contract type for the Soaring Otter

BAA.

8) Q: Under Type of Contract/Instrument on page 2 of the BAA, it states “Cost reimbursement contracts require successful offerors to have an accounting system considered adequate for tracking costs applicable to the contract.” What criteria will the Government use to determine the offeror’s accounting system is adequate? Are there certain requirements and/or conditions that specifically need to be met to be considered adequate?

A: Reference DFARS 252.242-7006 - Accounting System Administration for definition of “acceptable accounting system” and system criteria. If the proposal submission is deemed selectable per the BAA evaluation criterion, a Pre-award Survey may need to be conducted prior to award if offeror does not have an accounting system that has been deemed adequate by Defense Contracting Audit Agency (DCAA).

9) Q: Under IV.2.b.f on page 14-15 of the BAA regarding the Technical/Management Proposal, it states

“The page limitation covers all information including indices, photographs, foldouts (counted as 1 page for each 8.5 by 11 portion) tables, charts, appendices, attachments, resumes, etc.” In the following paragraph g, it states “The proposal page limit does not include the offeror’s proposed Statement of Work (SOW) and resumes.” Was resumes included in one of the paragraphs inadvertently?

A: Yes, resumes were included inadvertently. Resumes do not count towards the proposal page limit.

10) Q: Does the formatting for the SOW apply to Resumes?

A: Yes, the same formatting can apply to resumes.

11) Q: Is Offeror required to have TS/SCI clearance at time of contract award to be eligible?

A: Yes, the offeror is required to have some of their staff allocated at the TS/SCI level at the time of award. There are several programs that will require TS/SCI at the start of this contract, and it can take months to be cleared which is out of the Government control.

12) Q: Is there opportunity for the awarded contractor to be sponsored for TS/SCI clearance via this contract/customer?

A: Yes, there are opportunities for the Government to sponsor. However, the offeror is highly recommended to have TS/SCI capability at the time of proposal. The Government will not pay for the establishment of any SCIFs.

13) Q: If the offeror has an approved SCIF through DIA, however, it is not recorded in the National Industrial Security System (NISS). Will this meet the Program Security Classification requirements?

A: Yes, the SCIF would need to request a joint use agreement if the offeror is selected for the award.

We will ensure the proper statements are included in the DD 254 request. Since DCSA only has oversight for collateral information, we will not need to request a safeguarding upgrade to TS. The following SCIF info will need to be provided: Address, SCIF ID, and CSSO contact info (name, email, and phone number.)

14) Q: Is there a place on betaSAM that potential offerors can sign up to see who else is interested for possible teaming?

A: The Government has made the Interest Vendor List public. Per, the Beta.Sam.Gov website, here are the instructions to Sign Up for Interested Vendor List (IVL):

1) You must have an account in beta.SAM.gov that is associated with your entity’s DUNS number from its registration in the System for Award Management (SAM).

2) The contracting officer is the only person who can determine whether to include an IVL.

3) If the notice has an IVL, a link will be present on the left as the last section in the opportunity.

Click “Add Me to the Interested Vendors List” to be added to the list. Clicking the same button again will remove you from the list.

4) If the government has made the IVL public, you will be able to see all the entities that have added themselves to the list, and others will be able to see your company on the list.

15) Q: The cost proposal instructions (page 17 of BAA) state in bold: Potential offerors will be required to price for the overall effort AND by separate funding type (see SOO for corresponding tasks) listed in Section II.2. Does this mean that the offeror should submit one cost proposal for $88M

(RDT&E), $9M (O&M), $1M (PROC) in accordance with the breakdown on page 17 of BAA, which rolls up to $98M?

A: Yes, the Government is requiring one cost proposal per submission which encompasses pricing for the overall effort (includes RDT&E, O&M , and Procurement) and segregating RDT&E, O&M, and Procurement work into separate pricing sheets (preferably excel). This will allow the Government to evaluate the different types of work separately and to avoid violating the Purpose Statute, IAW 31 U.S.C. 1301.

16) Q: Are “few-shot” detection capabilities to detect/identify targets with < 100 examples relevant, or do labeled dataset already exist for target applications?

A: Not for the Soaring Otter BAA.

17) Q: Is the focus on air-to-air targets or is air-to-ground targeting relevant as well?

A: For this effort mostly air-to ground. We do some air-to-air, but majority air to ground.

18) Q: Is there interest in pure automatic/aided target recognition capabilities or is the interest more specifically in how these algorithms enable autonomous approaches? In other words, would proposing to improve the target recognition capability be responsive, or do we need to propose a full autonomous navigation/operation system?

A: The Soaring Otter effort, is not looking for a full autonomous system, we are looking to bring in new and innovative ideas to accelerate the areas listed in the SOO. We are looking to advance several technical areas that can then be used to help facilitate autonomous approaches for a variety of military applications.

19) Q: If the offeror does not have a top secret clearance, would that prevent from joining a team?

A: Refer to Question 11 in regards to TS clearance. If an offeror joins a team as a subcontractor, but does not have the appropriate clearance(s), it will be the prime contractor’s responsibility to ensure those specific subcontractors do not perform, support, or develop software/data without the appropriate clearance.

20) Q: What does “Closed BAA” mean?

A: After the proposal submission date, the BAA will be closed and the Government will no longer be accepting proposals.

21) Q: Is there a forum established to help with teaming for the BAA?

A: No forums have been established. However, offerors can monitor the Interested Vendor List on Beta.Sam.gov under the Soaring Otter BAA.

22) Q: On Page 14, paragraph 2.a.ii it looks like the sentence was cut short following “Cost Spreadsheets”. Was there something else to follow?

A: No, the word “cost spreadsheets” was inadvertently left in the BAA. Reference BAA section IV.2.c.ii for Cost Element Breakdown requirements.

23) Q: Should resumes be a separate attachment in the proposal and are they subject to a page limitation?

A: Resumes are not subject to a page limitation. The offeror may make resumes a separate attachment and/or volume, if they so choose.

24) Q: Is a Table of Contents required, and if so, is it also subject to the page limit (for either

Technical/Management or SOW)?

A: A Table of Contents is not required. However, if the offeror chooses to use a Table of Contents it is not subject to the page limit for Technical/Management or SOW.

25) Q: Is there a desire to have the work conducted under this BAA in close proximity to AFRL at WPAFB or could they be anywhere in the country?

A: Yes, Base Support is included in the BAA. The Government anticipates providing up to 50 on-site workstations, Reference BAA section I.6.b.

26) Q: Is there a potential for a Conflict of Interest with respect to Task 2 and the scope context of "Evaluation"? Under this context may this potentially imply that a company that participates with this Task may run the risk of being eliminated from future contracts that may flow down from the Gov?

A: Under this Task AFRL would like a small team separated with NDAs to support the evaluation of other algorithms in a non-biased manor. AFRL will take this as a case by case basis, if there seems to be a conflict of interest, others perhaps a Government team will perform the evaluation. We have not had a problem in the past, but have a contingency plan in place if the situation arises. The Soaring Otter contractor will not be put in the situation of being eliminated from future contracts that may flow down from the Government. The Government and the contractor will make the decision together as if they believe there is a conflict of interest and would rather not participate in the evaluation.