FA8723-16-R-0005_Q A_CRM_FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 39 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Shared Early Warning System (SEWS) II Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8723-16-R-0005
About this file
Combined Questions and Answers submitted from prospective bidders.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Shared Early Warning System (SEWS) II has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP Q&A
| Question Number | Section Number | Comment/Recommendation | Gov't Resolution |
| 1 | Section L | The early draft RFP asked us to identify 5 key personnel: 2.4.3.6 Key Personnel. Identify not more than five (5) Key Leadership/Management Positions, as required in H001, based on the Offeror's proposed approach. For each Key Position identified, the Offeror shall provide: 1) the rationale for the position being designated as key, 2) the roles and responsibilities of the position, and 3) the minimum qualifications (education and experience) for each position. Do not submit resumes. |
This final RFP has Section J Atch 33: Key Positions We cannot find anywhere in the current Section L & M that tells us to submit it or to which Subfactor it belongs. It is not listed in the outline. What is the purpose of Atch 33 and what should we do with it?
Section J, Atch 33 is identified in Section L, para 5.1.3. Section J is an attachment that will become part of the resulting contract. Follow directions provided at the bottom of Section J, Atch 33 where it states that the "Contractor shall be responsible for listing the four remaining positions below" and submit with the Offeror's Contract Volume.
| 2 | Section L, 1.2.12.1 | We are supposed to submit CD/DVD-Rs - fifteen CD/DVDs in total. Table 2.1 - Proposal Organization states that we are only submitting electronic copies. Please clarify what we need to submit. | The CDs/DVDs are considered electronic copies. |
| 3 | Section L, 1.4 | Submission to DCMA & DCAA. We have not seen this before. Seems unusual that we would simultaneously submit the proposal to the KO and the pricing to DCAA & DCMA. Team experience has been that the KO handled any coordination with them after proposal submissions. How do we know who to submit it to? | See updated section L in Amendment 01; removed DCMA/DCAA requirement. |
| 4 | Section L Atch 01, PPIS | Per Q&A regarding the Section L Atch 01 Past Performance Information Sheet, the government specifies "500 words per space unless otherwise stated" which only applies to Space D. The previous request /question "Will the government consider allowing 500 words per subfactor in Section E (Space E)?" The government response - "Please see revised section L attachments." |
| We can find no changes in Atch 01 regarding word limitations. Please clarify. | Offeror's should refer to the final RFP documents posted under Solicitation FA8723-16-R-0005. | ||
| 5 | Section J - Atch 25 Cost Workbook | The Government did not include any travel expenses for GFY2017. How does the Government want the contractor to account for travel expenses necessary to perform the joint inventory (and any other needs) required during the transition period (PWS 2.3.6). |
| How does the Government want the contractor to complete the Price-Track Spreadsheet for travel expenses during the transition period, if no travel expenses have been allocated? | The Government does not anticipate any travel requirements during the SEWS II Transition period. The Government does not consider travel necessary to conduct the joint inventory. | |||
| 6 | CDRL A00E and Section L 2.2.3.1 | Section L requests the Program Management Plan to be included in Subfactor 1. The CDRL A00E asks that the PMP be delivered 10 days after contract award. Which is correct? | See updated Section L, para 2.2.1.1 in Amendment 01. The Section L requirement should be a DRAFT of the product that will delivered once on contract. | |
| 7 | Section L, Basis of Estimates and Section J - Atch 16, WBS Dictionary | |||
| Does the Government only want the 60 BOEs designated as in the WBS Dictionary, all of which are year 1? | The Offeror shall provide all 59 BOEs as identified in Section J, Atch 16 -- the column header identifies which WBS number applies to which CLIN, all of which are not year 1. | |||
| 8 | Section L, Basis of Estimates and Section J - Atch 16, WBS Dictionary | Is the Government expecting the equivalent BOEs for subsequent US Years and following FMS POPs? | The Offeror shall provide all 59 BOEs as identified in Section J, Atch 16 -- the column header identifies which WBS number applies to which CLIN. This includes subsequent US years and FMS PoPs. | |
| 9 | Section J - Atch 16, WBS Dictionary | PDF version of WBS Dictionary has problems with one row of the spreadsheet getting overlapped by another row. Makes it difficult to determine the rows and BOE counts in the 2nd half of the WBS Definitions. | .xlsx file will be provided with Amendment 01. | |
| 10 | Section J - Atch 14, Section L | On page 10, we are directed to deliver “copies of the Cost/Price volume(s) of the proposal to the cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Contract Administration Office (CAO) and Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office”. Should this be a bound and sealed paper copy, or an electronic one delivered via e-mail or on virus-free CD-ROM? | See updated section L in Amendment 01; removed DCMA/DCAA requirement. | |
| 11 | Section J - Atch 14, Section L | Pages 35-36, states that non-disclosure agreements with Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Oasis Systems, LLC and Quantech Services. The SF-33 references a non-disclosure agreement requirement with Tecolote Research, but does not mention Quantech Services. Please provide the current list of non-government advisors with whom our prime will need to have a non-disclosure agreement. | Amendment 01 provides correction to reflect current companies. |
| 12 | Cover Letter | Says to assume award date of July 1, 2016. Should that be July 1, 2017? | Concur, expected award date is 1 Jul 2017. Cover letter will not be updated. |
| 13 | Section L, 1.02 | This section indicates a start date of 01 October 2017. Does this imply this is at the end of the 90 transition? | The Transition Period is planned for 1 Jul 2017 - 30 Sep 2017. |
| 14 | General | Does the Government still require NDAs with the SETA/A&AS contractors (e.g. Odyssey, OASIS, etc.)? | Yes. |
| 15 | General | Does the Government require ACA's with the proposal? | ACAs are not required with the Offeror's proposal submission |
| 16 | General | Please confirm that hard copy submissions are no longer required (as in the DRFP) and only CD submissions are required. | CD/DVD (electronic) submission requirements are defined in Section L, 1.2.12.1 |
| 17 | General | Please confirm that commitment letters are no longer required from the five key personnel as they were in the draft RFP. | The final RFP has the current requirements. |
| 18 | Section L, Page 15, para 3.0 | Please confirm that there are no page limits on the past performance citations nor on the overall past performance volume as there were in the draft RFP | The Government cannot reasonably limit the number of pages |
in the Offeror’s past performance volume due to the requirement of submitting a requirements document with each past performance citation.
| 19 | Section L, Page 8, Paragraph 1.2.9, Binding and Labeling | Does this section still apply if we are not submitting hard copies? | Yes. |
| 20 | Section L, Page 8, para 1.2.12 | Since Microsoft Office 16 applications (Word, Excel, Project, Power Point) are backward compatible with Microsoft Version 10, may we submit in Microsoft Office 16 applications? | Submit MS Office 2010 applications only. |
| 21 | Section L, Page 16, para 3.2.6 | With Government contracts, Contracting Officers often delegate responsibility for completing performance evaluations to Program Managers or others directly involved with a contract, and do not complete Past Performance Evaluations. Under RFP Section L., ITO 3.2.6, it states, “Offerors shall send PPQs on each identified contract/project to the points of contact for that contract/project. If the identified contract/project was a Government effort, send to the Program Manager and Contracting Officer. This questionnaire is contained at Past Performance Questionnaire (Section J Attachment 29, Section L Attachment 2). Provide a list of questionnaire recipients to include POCs and phone numbers. Questionnaire recipients should be instructed to return completed questionnaires directly to the SEWS II Contracting Officer.” |
1. If a Contracting Officer delegates completing the PPQ to a Program Manager or other party, are Offerors still expected to have the Contracting Officer provide a completed PPQ?
2. If only one PPQ is received for a contract, or if the Contracting Officer’s and Program Manager’s PPQs differ in their evaluations, how will that effect the Performance Confidence rating for the contract? The Government expects PPQs to be returned by Government PCOs and PMs
The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating is assigned at the Factor Level taking into account all available information.
22 Section L Page 13, Paragraph 2.2.1.1.3 This paragraph states …"In addition, all teaming agreements shall be submitted in the Past Performance Volume with the Offeror’s proposal."
| Please clarify this is where you want teaming agreements and if so, where in the Past Performance Volume do you want them? | All Teaming Agreements shall be submitted in the Past Performance Volume as part of the Structure Change History section but will not be included in the three (3) count page limit. | ||||
| 23 | Section L Page 15, Paragraph 2.2 | Are subcontractor/teammates required to submit Organizational Structure Change History? | Yes. | ||
| 24 | Section L Page 31, Paragraph 4.3.6 | Are subcontractor/teammates required to submit a Compensation Plan for Professional Employees | Yes; refer to Section L, 4.3.6.1. | ||
| 25 | Section L Page 13, Paragraph 2.2.1.1 | This paragraph and its subparagraphs indicate one set of items to be included in the PMP. The CDLR A00E indicates a different set of information to be included in the PMP. Which is correct? | See updated Section L, para 2.2.1.1 in Amendment 01. The Section L requirement should be a DRAFT of the product that will delivered once on contract. | ||
| 26 | Section L Page 36, Paragraph 5.3.2.1 | Per this paragraph, NDAs with the Non-government advisors (Odyssey, Quantech, and OASIS) to be included in the proposal. Please provide POC information for each company so that NDAs may be obtained. | See NDA POCs doc for complete POC listing. | ||
| 27 | Section L Page 10, paragraph 1.4. | Are there any special markings for the Cost Volume to be delivered to DCMA and DCAA to include markings subcontractors? | See updated section L in Amendment 01; removed DCMA/DCAA requirement. | ||
| 28 | Section L Page 22, paragraph 4.3.2 | For the Estimating System Summary, Purchasing System Summary, etc., is the Prime to include the subcontractor CAGE codes in the prime’s submittal? | Yes; refer to Section L, 4.3.2.1. | ||
| 29 | Section L Page 28, paragraph 4.3.4.2. | This asks for the location of the subcontractor(s). If the subcontractor has multiple locations, do we list all locations? | Offeror's should list the primary location if the subcontractor has multiple locations. | ||
| 30 | Section L Page 29, 4.3.5.4. | This states that the shaded cells are to be left blank. For example, on the TO 0001 – CLIN 0002 CR tab in the Cost Workbook, the cells under the Base, Rate Total, for each CFY, are shaded. Where do we enter the information required that is identified by the title of each column? | Cost/Price Workbook has been updated to reflect correct shading. | ||
| 31 | Section L Page 29, 4.3.5.4. | This states that the Government calculations/formulas intact are to be left intact. Other than the T&M BEQ tab of the Cost Workbook, no other calculations were evident. | Follow sample calculations; all other calculations provided by Offeror and must be easily followed. | ||
| 32 | Section L Page 35, paragraph 5.3.1.2. | Will a SF 328 suffice as evidence of being free from Foreign Ownership Control or Influence (FOCI). | Yes; a completely filled out SF328 will suffice as evidence of being free from FOCI. | ||
| 33 | Section_J_Atch_26,_SEWS_II_Cost_Workbook | When opening the Cost Workbook, the following error occurs: (see figure to right of this spreadsheet) ------> | Please refer to Amendment 01 for the updated Cost Workbook. | ||
| 34 | Attachment 2, SEWS Transition Plan | Paragraph 2.3.6 | Para 2.3.6 requires, “Contractor’s time-phased activities for completing a joint inventory and transfer of non-commercial and commercial software and software licenses, hardware, and warranties (to include Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS), non-commercial and commercial technical data and software documentation, non-technical and technical data, Government Furnished Equipment, on-site spares, parts, supplies, and tools, local equipment accounts (SEWS Consolidated Distribution Facility (CDF) and Integration and Test Facility (ITF)), COMSEC materials, and classified materials and documents).” |
Per Section J, Atch 14, Section L, para 4.2.7.1, Transition Travel (CLINs 0002 and 0004) identifies $0 for both CLINS.
If no travel funds are to be provided during the transition period, is the contractor required to complete a joint inventory of the material identified above at locations outside the Colorado Springs area (i.e. FMS locations, COCOM locations, “on-site” locations, etc.)?
| The Government does not anticipate any travel requirements during the SEWS II Transition period. The Government does not consider travel necessary to conduct the joint inventory. | |
| 35 | CDRL A00E |
and Section L Instructions Section L Instruction 2.2.1.1 (Program Management Plan Section L requests the Program Management Plan to be included in Subfactor 1.
The CDRL A00E references DI-MGMT-81453A/T, which is a Data Item Assession List (DAL), not either a (1) Program Management Plan, or (2) an Integrated Program Management Plan.
Does the Government have a Government Roadmap Schedule (from OSD's IMP_IMS_Guide_v9) available in order to develop the contractors PMP, in which to include an IMP and IMS?
Please provide the correct Data Item Description (DID) reference that HBQS wants used for the PMP or Integrated PMP. See updated Section L, para 2.2.1.1 in Amendment 01.
Please refer to Amendment 01 for the updated DD1423-1 with the correct DID (DI-MGMT-80004A/T) that applies to CDRL A00E.
A Government Roadmap has been uploaded to the Bidders' Library.
| 36 | Attach 16, WBS Dictionary | PDF version of WBS Dictionary has problems with one row of the spreadsheet getting overlapped by another row. Makes it difficult to determine the rows and which BOE counts in the 2nd half of the WBS Definitions. | .xlsx file will be provided with Amendment 01. |
| 37 | Section L, Basis of Estimates |
and Attach 16, WBS Dictionary Section L, paragraphs 4.3.7.x Is the Government expecting BOEs for subsequent US Years (2 through 4) and follow-on FMS POPs (POP 2)?
First table within Attachment 16 identifies a WBS number but does not establish a year, as was done in the second table, where everything is Year 1. The second table identifies those WBS elements requiring a BOE. Table 1 shows multiple CLINs as part of many WBS elements whereas Table 2 is Year 1 only (e.g., CLIN 0022), which negates the need for the secondary, follow-on CLIN (CLIN 1022), as part of a required BOE.
Does the Government want US Year or FMS POPs BOEs to include those CLINs associated with the logical follow-on periods of performance?
It is unclear whether any single BOE (like one for CLIN 0022) requires the equivalent CLIN 1022 for follow-on periods of performance? Second example: does the WBS Yr.1.1.9 require a BOE for CLIN 0005 alone, or does it require CLINs for the entire series 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005 and 4005?
| The Offeror shall provide all 59 BOEs as identified in Section J, Atch 16 -- the column header identifies which WBS number applies to which CLIN. This includes subsequent US years and FMS PoPs. | |||
| 38 | Attachment 2 (Transition) | Paragraph 2.3.7 | Para 2.3.7 requires, “Contractor’s time-phased activities for transferring the existing data repository and establishing a new SEWS integrated digital environment (IDE) to meet the requirement in the U.S. Support TO by the end of the transition period.” |
| Will the government provide the “data model/architecture” of the existing data repository so that bidders understands the scope of data required to be transferred when designing their IDE? | The Government does not intend to direct the contractor on how to manage the SEWS II data repository. The contractor will define an IDE-compliant architecture to meet SEWS data configuration management requirements. Upon contract award, all data from the existing electronic data repository will be provided to the contract awardee. | |||
| 39 | Attachment 2 (Transition), paragraph 2.3.8 | Paragraph 2.3.8 | Para 2.3.8 requires, “The Contractor’s plan for interfacing with incumbent employees and general on- boarding.”. SEWS II SF33, Part II, Section I incorporates FAR Clause 52.222-17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers. Under 52.222-17, “‘Service employee’, as used in this clause, means any person engaged in the performance of a service contract other than any person employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity, as those terms are defined in 29 CFR part 541. |
Does the government consider the employees under this contract to be ‘Services employees’ engaged in the performance of a service contract given the labor category descriptions outlined in Section J, Atch 17, SEWS II Labor Categories?
Does the government consider this contract covered under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act?
| If the government does not consider the employees under this contract “service employees” and this contract is not covered under the McNamara Service Contract Act, what is the purpose/rationale of the governments requirement of the contractor to provide a plan to interface with incumbent employees, specifically related to the hiring of said incumbent employees? | The SEWS II contract is not covered by the Service Contract Act | |
| 40 | Attachment 2 (Transition), paragraph 3.3 |
Also, Attachment 21, Transition Incentive Fee Plan Section L, paragraph 3.3
Incentive Fee plan, Quality Performance Indexes (QPI 1) Para 3.3, Base Support, states office space and storage will be provided, “…for up to five (5) co-located personnel during transition.” Per Para 2.4.3, the contractor is required to provide, “…time-phased staffing actions to ensure sufficient qualified personnel are in place to assume full responsibility at the end of the transition period.”
If the government is only providing office space for five (5) personnel during transition, where are the remaining incoming staff expected to reside during transition such that they can familiarize themselves with the existing SEWS work and products so that they can assume full responsibility at the end of the transition period?
How could the Government assess the contractor's ability to assume full responsibility of the contract (QPI 1), if they are not allowed sufficient staff and work space, to assume performance of the work, even if the work load were shared equally among incumbent LM personnel during transition? How could the Government evaluate the contractor's ability to develop and execute a seamless and orderly transition if they have been denied adequate space and opportunity to work?
The remaining incoming staff may reside anywhere except the Government facility due to space limitations. The incoming personnel may be granted access to the facility but may not be accommodated.
The Government will assess and evaluate the contractor's ability to transition based on the Offeror's transition plan in its proposal.
41 Attachment 13, SEWS GFP Listing Will the government provide heading titles of the columns in the “Serialized Items List” and “Non-Serialized Items List” tables?
| Additionally, will the government provide the location of each item listed in the GFP list? | The GFP listing is pulled from a DoD established database; the columns are not customizable. | |||
| 42 | Section L 2.2.2.2 | Will the ACAS support requirement be performed in a “U.S. controlled” enclave/environment only? | ACAS is supposed to be implemented throughout the Accreditation boundary, which are sites under US control. | |
| 43 | PWS TO 02 2.2.2.2 | The CDRL A00L is for providing A&A artifacts only. Is the customer (vs the contractor) going to be responsible for/”owner” of the overarching SEWS Risk Management Framework (RMF) package, and submittal/maintenance of all artifacts in the DISA-sponsored system (eMASS), or will there be a requirement/expectation for the contractor to maintain the necessary bodies of evidence in eMASS as well (in addition to loading to a repository in the SEWS IDE)? | Artifacts/supporting documentation for the RMF A&A package are provided by the Prime Contractor. The Gov't or Gov't Designee is responsible for uploading the artifacts and ensuring the RMF controls have been addressed. The Prime Contractor supports addressing the controls since the ISSO is part of the Prime Contractor’s duties. | |
| 44 | PWS TO 02 2.2.2.2 | Does the CDRL A00L provided need to be updated to reflect/reference only RMF requirements and supporting bodies of evidence (artifacts) and supporting Authority? | Yes, we expect accreditation packages moving forward to only be in RMF. | |
| 45 | Section L 2.2.2.2 | What documents show the current “SEW System enclave”? These documents are necessary to detail our approach correctly based on the existing design. | Included in the bidders' library are high-level system diagrams including DoD Architecture Framework Operational View/Systems View and topology drawings. | |
| 46 | PWS TO 3-10 2.2.2.1 | What documents show the “US Accreditation Boundary (reflected on network topology drawing)” for each respective FMS case? These documents are necessary to detail our approach correctly based on the existing design. | Accreditation boundary diagrams have been included in the bidders' library. | |
| 47 | L.4.3.2.3.2 | Since SEWS is not a CAS covered contract (since it is SBSA) and therefore section L4.3.2.3.2 is not applicable. Would the government consider removing section L4.3.2.3.2? | The Government will not remove section L 4.3.2.3.2. The Offeror should state in their proposal applicability of this section. Please see FAR Appendix 9903.201-1 for CAS Applicability. | |
| 48 | L.3.2.1 | In regards to the first sentence, will the government only apply “Technical" evaluation or will that evaluation include “Management" and other aspect of the work provided? It is not clear as stated. | The Government will assess performance confidence at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating the Offeror’s |
recent past and present performance.
| 49 | M3.3 | Since SEWS is a single-award ID/IQ contract, why is the Government not considering single award ID/IQs with awarded task orders as allowable past performance experience. There is no greater relevance, especially for program management capability, than to showcase the ability to manage and support a multiple task order environment with various requirements and clients. Recommend the Government revise M3.3 to allow a “collection of task orders” under a single award ID/IQ as a single citation. This is allowable within the FAR and was recently done by GSA for the OASIS Small Business and Full and Open awards. | A collection of task orders will not be allowed under SEWS II as a single PPIS submission. |
| 50 | J Attachment 16 WBS Dictionary | Some elements are cut off. For example, YR.1.2.1 Systems Engineering Support. As a PDF version of the document, the rows cannot be expanded. Please provide an updated and editable copy showing the full entries. | .xlsx file will be provided with Amendment 01. |
| 51 | L2.2.3.1 | Can the government please clarify what they mean in the OPS scenario by “communications circuits are operational”? We believe the operational communication circuit includes all the equipment up to the GCCS box at both ends of the circuit or are you referring to the Commercial circuits that are contracted out? | Operational communications circuits are long haul lines that can be commercial or DoD-dedicated comm lines. |
| 52 | PPIS | Would the government consider changing the 2,000 word limit requirement in the Section L, PPIS, Section D to Section E? Section E requires more space to allow to proper discussion of relevance (size, scope and complexity) across the PWS and section L/M criteria. | The Past Performance Information sheet requests each space limited to 500 words unless otherwise stated. Section D requires more space for an in-depth answer. Section E should state the nature of your project in a concise manner, with direct references to the PWS, and relatable correlations to the SEWS II Program. Therefore section E will remain limited to 500 words. |
| 53 | Section L, |
page 15, paragraph 3.2 and
| page 16, paragraph 3.2.5.1 | Paragraph 3.2.5.1 states "If the prime is a joint venture … submit … one (1) associated requirements document (e.g., Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement)." This seems to conflict with the instruction in Paragraph 3.2 which states a "... requirement of submitting a requirements document with each past performance citation." | There is one (1) associated requirements document with each past performance citation. | ||
| 54 | Section L, | |||
| page 15, paragraph 3.2.2 | It is assumed that the Government would need to see the organizational change history for all members of a team, however, this discussion is limited to three (3) pages. Does this limit apply to the team as a whole, or, if needed, could each team member use three pages? | The organizational change history applies to all members of the team. The page limit applies to the team as a whole. | ||
| 55 | Section L, | |||
| page 13, paragraph 2.2.1.1 | The paragraph states "The Offeror shall provide and explain its Program Management Plan as described in CDRL A00E”. However, this CDRL is not deliverable with the proposal, it is due 10 DACA per the DID. Is the proper interpretation of this language that the Government intends for Subfactor 1 to contain all of the significant elements of the PMP with a particular focus as discussed in paragraphs 2.2.1.1.1 through 2.2.1.1.4? | See updated Section L, para 2.2.1.1 in Amendment 01. The Section L requirement should be a DRAFT of the product that will delivered once on contract. | ||
| 56 | Section J, | |||
| Attachment 33, Key Personnel | There are no instructions in Section L for including this attachment in the proposal. | Section J, Atch 33 is identified in Section L, para 5.1.3. Section J is an attachment that will become part of the resulting contract. Follow the directions provided at the bottom of Section J, Atch 33 where it states that the "Contractor shall be responsible for listing the four remaining positions below" and submit with the Offeror's Contract Volume. | ||
| 57 | Section L, page 19 and 20, paragraph 4.2.7.1 and 4.2.7.2 | Paragraphs 4.2.7.1 and 4.2.7.2 state “The Offeror shall ensure that Travel CLIN totals match the Government-provided amounts.” And “The Offeror shall ensure that Material and Surge CLIN totals match the Government-provided amounts” Whereas 4.3.5.12 Price Track Worksheet states “CR CLINs with Government-specified amounts will match the sum of the government specified amounts PLUS the Offeror’s indirect rates for each respective TO/DO. |
Please clarify whether the Government's estimates are inclusive of Offeror's Indirect Rates? See updated Section L, 4.3.5.12 in Amendment 01.
58 Section L, page 20, paragraph 4.2.7.1; Section B, pg 43 CLIN 1039; Attachment 26 Section B CLIN 1039 description and Paragraph 4.2.7.1 - #16 C7 Pop 2 Travel – CLIN 1039 do not match the amount in Attachment 26 Cost Workbook Travel Table. The Travel Table shows $1,828k while the text references show $1,824k.
| Please clarify that Travel Table is correct and the text is in error, and the correct amount to be used. | Updated CLIN 1039 and Section L to reflect correct amount of $1,828K. | |||
| 59 | Section L, page 29, paragraph 4.3.5.6 | Paragraph 4.3.5.6 states “The Government provided an example of how these worksheets should be completed using the TO 0002 – U.S. Support CLIN worksheet. This is only an example.” We can not locate the example. | ||
| Example added to the Cost/Price Workbook to reflect language in Section L. | ||||
| 60 | Section L, page 36, paragraph 5.3.2.1 | This paragraph only states the requirement for the Prime Contractor to submit Certificates of Non-Disclosure with Odyssey, Quantech, and Oasis Systems, LLC. It also states that only Quantech Services will review the cost volumes. Shouldn't the Subcontractors also submit a Certification of Non-Disclosure with Quantech Services for their Sealed Pricing Packages? | Any subcontractor or teammates submitting sealed pricing packages in response to the SEWS II RFP shall execute NDAs as well. Please see updated Section L Language. | |
| 61 | Section L, page 36, paragraph 5.3.2.1 | This paragraph states the requirement for the Prime Contractor to submit Certificates of Non-Disclosure. | ||
| Where in the proposal submission should the Offerors place these certificates? | Volume IV, the Contract Documentation Volume. | |||
| 62 | Section L, page 10, paragraph 1.4, and Table 2.1 | The paragraph states "... the Offeror shall deliver ... copies of the Cost/Price volume(s) of the proposal to ... " DCMA and DCAA in addition to the PCO. Table 2.1 shows 3 electronic copies (total) as being required. Is the proper interpretation that each organization receive one copy each, or should the PCO receive 3 copies and DCMA and DCAA each receive one? | See updated section L in Amendment 01; removed DCMA/DCAA requirement. | |
| 63 | Section K, page 11, paragraph C, Item K004 |
and Section L, page 35, 36, paragraph 5.3.2 These two references seem to conflict and be redundant.
(1) The list of Non-Government Advisors provided in each is slightly different. K004 includes Tecolote Research while para 5.3.2 lists Quantech.
(2) It would seem that the inclusion of K004 obviates the need for the separate NDAs required under para 5.3.2.
(3) K004 would appear to cover both the Prime and teammates while the instruction in 5.3.2.1 only mentions the prime.
| Clarify if both references are required. Correct the list of NGAs as appropriate. Include Teammates in the NDA instruction of 5.3.2.1 if appropriate. | Both references are required. See updated Section K in Amendment 01 for current A&AS contractors and updated Section L for inclusion of subcontractors or teammates to have NDAs as well. See updated NDA POCs document. | |||
| 64 | Attachment 26, Cost Price Workbook | When opening the attachment an error message is displayed regarding a missing external link. Please confirm that this is an error and can be safely ignored and corrected in the final submittal. | Concur, external link removed. | |
| 65 | Attachment 2, Transition Performance Work Statement (PWS), Table 1, page 8 | |||
| and Attachment 21, Transition Task Order Incentive Fee Plan, Appendix A, page 5 | The Transition PWS Service Delivery Summary (Table 1) defines a deviation as: |
"A deviation is defined as failing to execute the Transition Plan as written and approved by the Government."
while the IFP defines a deviation as:
"A deviation is defined as any change the Contractor makes to the Transition Plan not approved by the Government."
| The first statement makes it seem as if the Transition Plan is fixed at submission of the proposal and cannot be changed. | The Transition Plan as provided by the Offeror in their Proposal is fixed and may only be changed with Government approval. | |
| 66 | Attachment 20; DD254 and | |
| SEWS II Industry Day #2 Consolidated Q&As | In response to a question about the Draft DD254 regarding the storage of COMSEC materials the Government replied that "All COMSEC will be stored at the Government's facility." The Final DD254 states: "... cryptographic information/equipment shall be retained in a contractor facility account in accordance with NSA Industrial COMSEC Manual 90-1." |
| Please confirm that the COMSEC material will only be stored at the Government facility. | COMSEC will only be stored at the Government facility. Sentence removed from Section J Atch 20, DD254 Attachment 1 within the Bidders Library. | |||
| 67 | Section L, page 35, paragraph 5.3.2 | The requirement to obtain NDAs with the Non-Government Advisors does not identify points of contacts. As some of these companies are large and distributed we respectfully request the Government provide the proper POC for each company that is familiar with this requirement. | See Updated NDA POCs document. Although the Government provided POCs, it is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that the requirements of Section L are met. | |
| 68 | Section M, Paragraph 3.3 | Paragraph M3.3 provides a definition of Recency from a Timeframe perspective as well as provides a definition of the type of contract that would be considered a “contract/project” that could be described in a single PPIS (Section L3.2.5). The Government also provided the Task Order Structure of the current IDIQ SEWS-1 contract in the SEWS Request For Information dated 09/10/2014 (posted to fbo.gov on 09/11/2014) which at that time included 14 separate Task Orders. | ||
| A collection of task orders will not be allowed under SEWS II as a single PPIS submission. | ||||
| 69 | Paragraph 2.2.1.1.3 (Section L | In addition all teaming agreements shall be submitted in the PAST PERFORMANCE (Note that this a Factor 2 Evaluation area) even though Lines of Authority are focused under Program Management and Integration (Factor 1). Where will Organizational Lines of authority will be evaluated: Factor 1 or Factor 2? | Organizational lines of authority will be evaluated in Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Program Management and Integration. |
Teaming agreements are not separately evaluated under the Technical Factor.
| 70 | Section L, para 2.2.1.1.3 | Technical Subfactors instructions state the requirement for Teaming Agreements in the Past Performance Volume. Isn’t this requirement more appropriately included in the Technical Volume? Or if not and required in the Past Performance Volume, shouldn’t this requirement be included in Section L, Para 3.0, Volume II, Past Performance instructions? | All Teaming Agreements shall be submitted in the Past Performance Volume as part of the Structure Change History section but will not be included in the three (3) count page limit. |
| 71 | General | Is the equipment to be assumed under current maintenance/warranty? Will the warranty be maintained during the transition period? | Equipment warranties are tied to the item not to a company; therefore, will remain in effect through transition. |
| 72 | General | Are there any freeware or open source products being used? | Yes, FOSS products are used on SEWS. |
| 73 | General | Can you give more detail on two of the acronyms that are identified in the Typical SEWS Equipment Suites (FOM, AN/CZY 10 DTD)? | FOM: Fiber Optic Modems are used with fiber comm lines; AN/CZY 10 DTD is no longer used on SEWS and should be removed from the Typical SEWS Equipment Suites. |
| 74 | Section I | The RFP includes the clause 52.222-41, Service |
Contract Labor Standards, but no WD. If the RFP or contract includes 52.222-41 but no WD for the location(s) where work will be performed, then the only requirement is to comply with the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Can you please confirm that WD's will be released at the task order level, post-award, or will there be a WD released
| for the overall RFP/contract? | FAR 52.222-41 will be removed, see Amendment 01. | ||||
| 75 | Section J; Attachment 32 | The cited attachment appears to use rounded numbers that, when totaled, do not sum to the stated total. Will the Government issue a revised RFP Section J; Attachment 32? | Reference Section L, Para 4.3.2.6.6. No, the Government will not correct the rounded totals. The Government's estimated hours are provided by TO/WBS and rounded totals are for informational purposes only. | ||
| 76 | Section L | The Government included the latest (Jan 14) DFAR provision indicating that a contractor should crosswalk the proposal response to 36 FAR provisions. Is it the intent to provide a crosswalk for this proposal response for full compliance? Suggestion, Remove the DFAR clause for this acquisition as it may not be fully applicable | DFARS 252.215-7009 will be removed from Section L in Amendment 01 | ||
| 77 | General | Can the Government describe the responsibility of the contractor to negotiate any price support agreements, such as circuit availability? | The contractor is not involved in negotiating price support agreements, including circuit availability. | ||
| 78 | Section L | para 4.27 | In Section J Attachment 14, Section L paragraph 4.27 the Government established amounts for Travel and Materials are listed by CLIN number. The CLIN numbers and periods of performance do not necessarily match the Government Fiscal Year (GFY) periods. Can bidders allocate the Government established amounts by CLIN across the GFY periods on a straight line basis? For example, the Travel CLIN 0023 spans the period of 1 Oct 2017 through 26 March 2022 in the amount of $200,000. This is a 57-month period and we would allocate $200,000 across the GFY periods of performance as $42,105 in GFY 18 through GFY 22 (four years) and $31,580 in GFY 23. | The Cost Workbook already has the Travel amount input into this specific CLIN and all other Government-provided dollar amounts on the Travel/Material CLINs. Since these numbers are already provided across these CLINs and all other cells are shaded and don't require input, there is no need to provide a straight-line basis on this CLIN. The total amount on the Cost Workbook will show $200k only. | |
| 79 | SF33, Sec B | CLINs 0001 - 0004 | SEWS II SF33, Section B lists CLIN numbers 0001 through 0004 as having a period of performance of 1 July 2017 through 30 September 2017. The Government Fiscal Year (GFY) Summary included in the Government cost model shows a period of performance for these CLIN numbers as 1 October 2017 through 30 September 2018. Can we change the Government cost model to show the transition CLIN numbers as being from 1 July 2017 through 30 September 2017? | The Cost Workbook has been updated to reflect the correct period of performance. | |
| 80 | Cost Workbook | Section J Attachment 26, SEWS II Cost Workbook, on the Tab Government Fiscal Year (GFY) Summary, should CLIN 2009 be 2010 to match the SF33, Section B. | The Cost Workbook has been updated. | ||
| 81 | General | IDE | Is the referenced SEWS IDE referenced in the data transition area considered a GOTS or COTS solution? | The Government does not intend to direct the Offeror on how to manage the SEWS II data repository; the Government is not specifying a GOTS or COTS solution. | |
| 82 | General | IDE | If the IDE is COTS, should the contractor provide pricing in the ODCs? | The Offeror should include pricing in line with their proposed solution. | |
| 83 | General | IDE | If the IDE is COTS, what level of security classification? | Security classification for the IDE is intended to be UNCLASSIFIED. | |
| 84 | General | IDE | Does the government require the IDE to be hosted on-site, or is a remote hosting option at the adequate classification level an acceptable solution? | The Government does not intend to direct the contractor on how to manage the SEWS II data repository. The Offeror will define an IDE-compliant architecture to meet SEWS data configuration management requirements. Upon contract award, all data from the existing electronic data repository will be provided to the selected Offeror. | |
| 85 | General | IDE | If the IDE is GOTS, will the government disclose the name of their new IDE? | The Government does not intend to direct the contractor on how to manage the SEWS II data repository. The Offeror will define an IDE-compliant architecture to meet SEWS data configuration management requirements. Upon contract award, all data from the existing electronic data repository will be provided to the selected Offeror. | |
| 86 | General | The SF33 provided by government to industry in the Final RFP has restrictive access. Would the government consider providing a non-restrictive SF33 to industry so we may complete the required fields? | The Government will not provide a non-restrictive SF33. | ||
| 87 | Section L | para 1.4 | Section L, para 1.4 of the subject RFP requires delivery of the cost volume to DCMA and DCAA. How many copies of the cost volume are required to be delivered to each agency? | See updated section L in Amendment 01; removed DCMA/DCAA requirement. | |
| 88 | General | Section I | The RFP includes the clause 52.222-41, Service |
Contract Labor Standards, but no WD. If the RFP or contract includes 52.222-41 but no WD for the location(s) where work will be performed, then the only requirement is to comply with the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Can you please confirm that WD's will be released at the task order level, post-award, or will there be a WD released for the overall RFP/contract?
| FAR 52.222-41 will be removed, see Amendment 01. | ||||
| 89 | Section L | Para 3.2.5.1 | This paragraph indicates that requirements documents are only required for Joint Ventures but 3.2 infers they are required for all citations - which is right? | A requirements document is required for each Past Performance citation. |
| 90 | Section L | Para 3.2.2 | is Organizational Structure Change History required for subcontractors or just for the prime? | The organizational change history applies to all members of the team. The page limit applies to the team as a whole |
| 91 | Section L, Atch 1 | In the Past Performance Information Sheet, instructions state, “Each space is limited to 500 words unless otherwise stated.” Block E instructs that bidders map to SEWS II PWS. This is challenging to map to all the PWS sections within 500 words. Request the Government consider increasing the word count for Block E to 1,500 or 2,000. |
Block E: “Discuss how this contract/project is similar to the SEWS Requirement; specifically address how this contract/project is similar to Technical Subfactors 1 – 3, specifically point in the PWS submitted where it applies.”
| The Government will not adjust the word count of this section. Offerors may use bullets or other format as appropriate. | ||||
| 92 | Pre-Prop Conference | Is the data transmitted in a client/server architecture or is it connectionless/push distribution | Data is pushed from the distribution facility to the point of presence. From the PoP, it can be delivered via client/server. | |
| 93 | Pre-Prop Conference | Labor/Travel Hrs | Are the travel hours listed in the travel tables included in the technical hours shown in Section J Atch 32, Section L Atch 5, Gov't labor hours estimate? | Yes. |
| 94 | Pre-Prop Conference | General | What is the cut off date for questions? | The posted cut-off date for questions was 5 Oct, prior to the Pre-Proposal conference. Offerors can send questions after 5 Oct; the SEWS II team will answer them as time/resources allow. |
| 95 | Pre-Prop Conference | General | Is the Closing date still the same? | Yes, please refer to Section L for proposal due date. |
| 96 | Pre-Prop Conference | Section L | When are the PPQs due back to the Government? | PPQs submitted to Government and/or commercial entities should be due immediately, or no later than 30 days after the entity receives your questionnaire. By the proposal due date, refer to Section L for Offeror requirements for providing POC information for those personnel to whom they have sent a PPQ |
| 97 | Pre-Prop Conference | Can a Prime use a teammates Property Management System? | The Government does not intend to specify a solution for a Property Management System. | |
| 98 | Pre-Prop Conference | Transition | The Transition PWS requires population of a "new" IDE during transition. 1) Is the current IDE available? 2) If not, how does the government envision the Offeror developing a new IDE without ODC? | The Offeror shall define an IDE-compliant architecture to meet SEWS data configuration management requirements. Upon contract award, all data from the existing electronic data repository will be provided to the selected contractor. |
| 99 | Pre-Prop Conference | Are the labor categories listed in the travel tables notional or required? | The labor categories listed in the travel tables represent general type of labor/support requirements. | |
| 100 | Pre-Prop Conference | Is the CDS accreditation done as an enclave or "point-to-point"? | Each CDS requires its own accreditation as part of an enclave. | |
| 101 | Pre-Prop Conference | What are the number of domains used today and what is the expected growth? IF so, could you list them? | Please see the cybersecurity drawings included in the Bidders' Library. | |
| 102 | Pre-Prop Conference | Are there any issues with the current virtualization solution? Performance, maintenance, complexity, etc.? And by site? | Virtualization has not been implemented on the SEWS program. | |
| 103 | Pre-Prop Conference | Is there a need for an audio solution to allow talk/listen on multiple audio domains (either analog or digital for Unclass to TS/SCI)? | The existing voice reachback system from partner to COCOM is an operational requirement. | |
| 104 | Pre-Prop Conference | Is there a need to replace current guard solutions? Any cost or performance issues? | There is no requirement to replace the current guard solution. | |
| 105 | Pre-Prop Conference | Is intrusion detection a concern? If so, is current solution adequate? | Intrusion detection is a requirement under RMF. The current solution is adequate. | |
| 106 | Pre-Prop Conference | Any planned or desired targets for automation? Report generation, data routing, etc? | The current system data flow and processing is automated and does not require human interaction. | |
| 107 | Pre-Prop Conference | Any issues with current solution for client work station multi-level security? | There are no security issues with the current guard solution. | |
| 108 | Pre-Prop Conference | Does the Government want the PMP embedded? | See updated Section L, para 2.2.1.1 in Amendment 01. The Section L requirement should be a DRAFT of the product that will delivered once on contract. | |
| 109 | Pre-Prop Conference | Does the Government want plug numbers in the BOEs? | No - please refer to Section L for BOE information | |
| 110 | Pre-Prop Conference | Does the Government want Organizational Change History for Subcontractors? | The Offeror should supply Organizational change history for all teammates. | |
| 111 | Pre-Prop Conference | How will the Government evaluate performance during Transition if the company is limited to 5 FTEs during transition? | The Government's limit of five (5) seats is a result of office spaces/seats available during Transition and does not limit the amount of personnel an Offeror may propose or utilize during transition | |
| 112 | PPC Follow Up | What is the GOVT tech refresh cycle and estimated budget for each tech |
refresh?
| The standard DoD tech refresh cycle is approximately every five (5) years. The Government is not requesting tech refresh bids as part of this SEWS II proposal. | ||
| 113 | PPC Follow Up | What is the list of current COTS/GOTS hardware/software the comprises of |
fielded baseline today?
| Information has been added to the Bidders' Library with fielded baseline information. (See SEWS Components document) | ||
| 114 | PPC Follow Up | It states in 4.3.5.4 there are existing formulas on the worksheet. We only |
found formulas in the T&M BEQ tab. Its seems there should be more built in formulas. Can we confirm that the file provided is the current version to use?
| See updated file. | ||
| 115 | PPC Follow Up | CLIN 1039 has a discrepancy, the RFP lists $1,824,000, but $1,828,000 is |
listed in Travel Tab in the Cost Workbook. Which one is correct?
| Updated CLIN 1039 and Section L to reflect correct amount of $1,828K. | |||
| 116 | PPC Follow Up | BOE 1.3.2.10 is for US Consumables. Since the Govt provided “plug” ODC and Travel numbers and does not require a BOM, what is expected within this BOE and what PWS area(s) does it map to? The WBS Dictionary provides no information. | That BOE maps to para 2.3.2.5.5 of the PWS. The BOE would include any labor needed to support procuring and managing the products listed in the PWS. |
| 117 | PPC Follow Up | The US BOEs include the base and option year CLINs but Task Order 2 only provides workload estimates for travel/O&M for the base period, not any option periods. Does the Government only want to see Base Year (CLIN 0005) BOE for US support or for all years/CLINs and if the latter, what estimates for work/travel should we use since none were provided? | The Government wants BOEs to cover all CLINs over the 5 year period of the contract. The Government provided estimated hours for one year of support to use as a baseline but would also apply to years 2-5 of the contract. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .