NISSC Follow On RFI Q A.pdf

1. Under 3.2 Objec�ve #1, there is a statement that says Legacy Space systems will be included under DevSecOpsInt. Does that include the Mission Assurance Center (MAC) at Vandenberg?

If yes, do all MACs fall under DevSecOpsInt or would they fall under the sustainment of opera�onally accepted systems? Any insight on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

At this �me, the Government does not have a specific preference; however, for the scope of this RFI, the MACs would no�onally be aligned under the DevSecOpsInt effort, unless there is a compelling reason that jus�fies the MACs being incorporated under Sustainment.

2. Who is the current incumbent (if any) related to the sources sought?

The current incumbent for the NISSC II contract is Jacobs Technology Inc.

3. What is the incumbent's current project/job/contract number?

OASIS Contract# GS00Q14OADU120 // Order #FA8723-20-F-9001

4. Is the agency open to placing the prospec�ve requirement into the 8(a) program?

The Government is open to exploring opportuni�es for small businesses and 8(a) considera�ons across the NISSC II Follow-On effort; however, this RFI does not exclusively support a set-aside, and thus is presented for widespread review and input from industry, regardless of classifica�on.

5. Based upon the amount of informa�on being requested, would the Government be amenable to extending the submission deadline beyond 19 April 2024? We want to ensure we provide detailed and meaningful informa�on.

The Government has extended the RFI due date to 3 May 2024 at 1400 MDT.

6. We are pressing toward the 19 April response date but we would greatly appreciate addi�onal �me for us to review and solu�on a coherent response. So, if you would please, consider extending the submission date to the a�ernoon of Tuesday April 23rd. This gives us an addi�onal weekend of dra�ing our response followed by a Monday review, Tuesday morning adjustments, and finally a Tuesday a�ernoon submission.

The Government has extended the RFI due date to 3 May 2024 at 1400 MDT.

7. Is there a possibility that in the future, any part of this work will become a small-business or woman-owned small business set-aside?

Yes; the Government is interested in industry feedback on what small business partners may be interested in pursuing in support of the NISSC II Follow-On effort and related efforts for the NCMC-ITW/AA and Legacy Space programs.

8. Is the Government willing to meet with interested respondents between the �me of RFI receipt and the Government’s eventual decision on how and whether the project moves forward?

The Government plans to review the feedback from this RFI and make a determina�on regarding future industry engagement, to include the poten�al for addi�onal Industry Day events and one-on-one mee�ngs. No commitments have been made at this �me, but the Government will provide no�ce and release informa�on regarding engagements when needed.

9. Can you please provide an addi�onal two weeks to respond to the RFI so that we can properly assess the swim lanes described in the DRFP and provide back meaningful responses for the no�onal PWS outlines for the integra�on and sustainment lines of effort?

The Government has extended the RFI due date to 3 May 2024 at 1400 MDT.

10. In order for the Government to receive substan�ve responses from Industry with maximized detail on a request of this scope and magnitude, we request the government please consider an extension of the due date to1700 MDT 15 May 2024.

The Government has extended the RFI due date to 3 May 2024 at 1400 MDT.

11. In para 3.2, can the Government please clarify whether the Government intends to issue a single IDIQ contract for just the integra�on effort and contract separately for the lines of effort or issue a single IDIQ contract which addresses all three.

In para 3.2, the intent is for feedback on a concept where the Government could issue a single, overarching ID/IQ integra�on contract, where two lines of effort are subcontracted under a single principal integrator to run separate but coopera�ve efforts.

12. Reference RFI 3.2.1 How does the government envision the Principle Integrator contractor contractually direc�ng work to the DevSecOpsInt and sustainment support contractors without legal conflict?

Part of the Government’s request with this RFI is to know how industry will handle coopera�ve agreements between various companies and vendors (many of whom the Government recognizes as natural compe�tors in this environment), such as if the Government will have to broker agreements or if companies will be able to establish their own coopera�ve agreements for these efforts in order to support the Government’s needs and requirements for the NCMC-ITW/AA program. One ground rule for iden�fying poten�al solu�ons under a single principal integrator concept is that the integrator cannot also be the lead for the subordinate line of effort.

13. Reference RFI 3.2.2 “the subcontractors shall not be the same company or a subsidiary of the same company for both lines of effort” Given this statement, we ask the Government clarifica�on: Is the government saying the Principal Integrator cannot par�cipate in either the DevSecOpsInt or the sustainment support contacts and that the DevSecOpsInt contractor and the sustainment support contractor cannot par�cipate in both contracts?

The Principal Integrator, nor any of its subsidiaries, shall par�cipate in leading the prime effort and ac�ng as the lead for a subordinate line of effort. For example, Company R shall not be the Principal Integrator and also lead the Sustainment line of effort. In addi�on, the DevSecOpsInt provider shall not be the same, or subsidiary of, the Sustainment provider for this concept, since it would ul�mately result in one single company execu�ng the full spectrum of work as is currently scoped on the NISSC II contract. The Government has received prior feedback from industry that some companies do not want, nor have the capacity, to recruit and retain the workforce needed to confidently deliver required support and capability if they act as the Developer and the Sustainer provider given current market demands in the defense industry; especially the so�ware development and sustainment sectors. The Government had this feedback in mind when preparing this RFI, and incorporated that feedback when preparing this concept for industry feedback. However, this does not preclude industry from providing a solu�on with a different concept than the one presented by the Government.

14. Reference RFI para 3.4 (Objec�ve #3): If the government’s intent is to issue a single IDIQ contract to one company, how would industry determine which line of effort to pursue if in fact there is only one prime contractor for the total effort?

The Government has not yet prepared evalua�on criteria for a principal integrator to lead this concept since it is early in the planning stages; however, standard considera�ons of past performance and business qualifica�ons would be considered at a minimum.

15. What is the Government’s ra�onale for s�pula�ng in para 3.3.7 that resource sharing is not allowed across lines of effort or restric�ng which business en��es are permited to perform which por�ons of the work?

The Government seeks to improve overall contract management by establishing resource accountability, with the objec�ve of efficiently managing resources in concert with changes in defense priori�es. The inten�on with this s�pula�on is to minimize the inherent conflict with sharing resources across projects and lines of effort that might be separate yet equally important to the program for differing reasons. However, this does not preclude industry from providing a solu�on with a different concept than the one presented by the Government.

16. RFI para 4.3 states Objec�ve #4 is op�onal, yet para 4.4.2 states that Sec�on 2 of the white paper shall provide the substan�ve response for the RFI, to include Objec�ves 1-4. Is a response to Objec�ve #4 op�onal as stated in 4.3 or required as stated in 4.4.2?

The page count for the white paper and how the contents are organized are meant to apply to all sec�ons of the prepared response, to include Objec�ve 4, if a Respondee decides to include that informa�on with their response. Objec�ve 4 is completely op�onal, but anything included within that objec�ve shall be contained within the original page count and be labeled appropriately.

17. In paragraph 4.10 the Government directs the offeror minimize proprietary informa�on in their RFI response, if any is included at all. In paragraphs 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 the Government requests maximized detail about how an offeror would incen�vize, cooperate and team with industry partners. These details contain unique and key components of our solu�on and therefore would be considered proprietary. Given the direc�on in 4.10 to minimize proprietary informa�on, if any, would the government accept a response to 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 that is en�rely proprietary?

The guidance within with para 4.10 is intended to minimize any proprietary informa�on that may be presented through the examples of prior/current work requested under Objec�ve #4. The Government expects to have poten�ally proprietary informa�on delivered under Objec�ve 4, due to the fact that it may involve on-going contracts and sensi�ve programma�c informa�on between the Government and industry par�cipants, to include their subcontractors and vendors. The Government will accept and protect informa�on that is proprietary, in any amount, regardless of which sec�on it appears in submissions.

18. RFI Sec�on and/or text 6.2.2 Given the complexity and level of detail desired in the response to this RFI, would the government please extend the deadline? Vendors should provide meaningful and thought-out responses and we do not feel 9 days is sufficient to do so.

The Government has extended the RFI due date to 3 May 2024 at 1400 MDT.

19. RFI Sec�on and/or text 3.3 Is there a current contract that this desired outcome is modeled a�er to be able to reference to try and understand what the government is looking for?

There is not a specific model in mind; however, the Government is interested in iden�fying how industry may manage a hybrid approach, blending the concept of a single overarching integrator with the concept of two separate providers for DevSecOpsInt and Sustainment. The Government seeks input for what industry can support for managing a truly integrated effort if that concept was pursued. Industry feedback has informed the Government that many companies are interested in maintaining their specializa�on as a certain type of provider, while others have past performance histories of being excellent integrators, yet don’t currently maintain a staff with the specialized technical skills to execute daily opera�ons as required by the Government.

20. RFI Sec�on and/or text 4.3 We are specifically interested in one par�cular “line of effort”.

We feel our exper�se and input is best focused on that line of effort. Do we s�ll need to respond to and provide a PWS outline for both lines of effort under Objec�ve #2?

The Government seeks input from industry for all objec�ves, but recognizes that responses will most likely indicate each business’s interests and preferences. Please do provide feedback and sugges�ons on Objec�ve #3 to the best of your ability by the deadline.

21. RFI Sec�on and/or text 3.1 “informa�on requested is specific to the two (2) objec�ves below” and 4.3 “Submissions shall include responses to both Objec�ves 1, 2 and 3, as described above.” Sec�on 3.1 says to respond to “both objec�ves” while 4.3 asks vendors to respond to Objec�ves 1, 2, and 3. Please clarify.

The Government desires responses to Objec�ves 1, 2, and 3. A response to Objec�ve 4 is op�onal.

22. RFI Sec�on and/or text 3.2 “Objec�ve #1: Using the atached PWS from the NISSC II contract, provide and recommend no more than one (1) novel model”

Possible models rely heavily on the procurement strategy and contract vehicle. Which acquisi�on method is the government most considering at this �me? (a) New Fair and Open Single Award Contract , (b) A BPA or BOA under an exis�ng Best in class (BIC) IDIQ (like OASIS),(c) A BPA or BOA under an exis�ng GWAC IDIQ (like GSA MAS), (d) Or an OTA

The Government is not releasing preferred contract strategy informa�on to industry at this �me since concepts for contract strategies are s�ll in the planning phase. The Government requests feedback from industry on what each company would recommend or advocate for, and has not eliminated any of the op�ons men�oned in the ques�on.

23. RFI Sec�on and/or text 3.2 “Objec�ve #1: Using the atached PWS from the NISSC II contract, provide and recommend no more than one (1) novel model” If the answer above is a BIC – which BIC’s are you considering. Again, this impacts a novel approach because GSA CTAs operate differently than the FAR CTAs.

The Government cannot provide addi�onal clarifica�on on this ques�on at this �me.

Please provide a response that speaks to the solu�on your company believes would be most successful.

24. RFI Sec�on and/or text 3.2.4 Is the government going to require the Prime have a

SCIF?

The Government has not set requirements for facility clearances yet regarding this effort.

25. Page 3, Para3.3, Para �tle Objec�ve 2 Would a table mapping PWS paragraphs to lines of effort and address the efficiency ques�ons be acceptable? Could this be formated in a foldout (11" x 17") to accomodate the amount of informa�on?

Yes, a table or chart mapping the informa�on is acceptable for the Government, if the assump�on is that the paragraphs referenced in the table do not need to be changed as originally writen.

26. Page 4, Para 4.2 , Para �tle Submission Instruc�ons Would the Govt consider extending the submission date 1 week to allow for a more thorough response to Objec�ve 2 and to provide �me for the Govt to respond to ques�ons and in turn for industry to respond to those answers?

The Government has extended the RFI due date to 3 May 2024 at 1400 MDT.

27. Page 3, Para 3.2, Para �tle Objec�ve 1 Can the Govt provide addi�onal insight or reasoning behind the required separa�on of work by the contractor and one of the lines of effort? Would the Govt consider a more collabora�ve approach to subcontractor management and resource alloca�on during execu�on? Risk is increased with such restric�on as the prime contractor is limited in its ability to allocate addi�onal resources as may be needed across the lines of effort. Financial risk is also increased for the prime contractor as the segregated line of effort would be fully passed through by the subcontractor.

The Government acknowledges changes in the risk dynamic associated with this concept; however, the Government is highly interested in ge�ng accurate characteriza�on of those risks from industry through this request. The Government seeks to improve overall contract management by establishing resource accountability, with the objec�ve of efficiently managing resources in concert with changes in defense priori�es. The inten�on with this s�pula�on is to minimize the inherent conflict with sharing resources across projects and lines of effort that might be separate yet equally important to the program for differing reasons. However, this does not preclude industry from providing a solu�on with a different concept than the one presented by the Government.

28. Page 4, Para 3.3.7, Para Title Objec�ve 2 Can the Govt explain the requirement to avoid "shared" services" teams? With the required separa�on of mul�ple contractors in sec�on 3.2.2, does the Govt believe this to be an OCI issue?

The Government seeks to improve overall contract management by establishing resource accountability, with the objec�ve of efficiently managing resources in concert with changes in defense priori�es. The inten�on with this s�pula�on is to minimize the inherent conflict with sharing resources across projects and lines of effort that might be separate yet equally important to the program for differing reasons.

29. Page 1, Para CLIN 006 In the material cost CLIN, can the gov't elaborate on the statement " Equipment, licenses, support agreements, and material (site, log line, & CMAFS Materials) including indirect handling rate is 11.14% (not fee bearing)." Does this mean that all material on this CLIN shall bear a 11.14% indirect handling rate on top of the direct cost?

The Government provided CLIN informa�on as a point of reference for the current NISSC II contract and does not require addi�onal or extensive details addressing the costs and rate burdens with specific values. Concepts for how CLINs could be established in support of the Respondee’s recommended solu�on can be included; however, there is no desire by the Government to receive evalua�ons that address numerical values of fee assessments. The Government expects industry to provide feedback on which types of CLINs may have incen�ve or award fees, but no addi�onal details beyond that extent.

30. CLINs 0001 through 0004 appear to be iden�cal other than contract type. What is the government’s intent in terms of which tasks or labor categories would fall under each CLIN?

It would be up the Offeror to propose what tasks and labor categories would fall under each clin for Government review.

31. Is the Principal Integrator allowed to lead one of the two Lines of Effort (LOE) while u�lizing a subcontractor for the other LOE, or is the Principal Integrator prohibited from having scope under either of the two LOEs?

The Principal Integrator is prohibited from having scope uniquely assigned under one or both lines of effort, apart from suppor�ng the transi�on of work between lines of effort.

32. Is any work scope an�cipated for NISSC-III that does not exist today under NISSC-II? Can the NISSC-II PWS be considered a comprehensive and complete capture of the work to be performed under NISSC-III?

The NISSC II PWS provided with this RFI captures the full scope of known requirements for the follow-on contract, however this is subject to change. Addi�onal sensi�ve details for future work will be released as needed in future solicita�ons or requests.

33. Are addi�onal Task Orders (TOs) expected under the IDIQ construct for future development and moderniza�on tasks? If so, will those TOs be openly competed or sole-source efforts for the Principal Integrator to bid?

The Government has not yet made a determina�on as to the compe��on and award plan for future work, but is currently evalua�ng op�ons.

34. In sec�on 3.4, under Objec�ve #3, the government indicates that respondents should state which Line of Effort they intend to pursue. Is the Principal Integrator a possible choice here as well? Will selec�ons made for this RFI be binding going into the RFP phase (if that should happen)?

Yes, absolutely; responses should indicate if a company would be interested in pursuing the integrator role, as well as if they’d have a secondary or ter�ary interest in pursuing the role of DevSecOpsInt lead or Sustainer provider.

35. Does the government intend to award NISSC-III under OASIS, OASIS+, or any other pre-exis�ng IDIQ contract vehicle, or will it be an en�rely new vehicle?

The Government is not releasing addi�onal informa�on about the contract type or vehicle at this �me, but those details will be forthcoming with subsequent follow-ups to industry.

36. Is there any contractor currently execu�ng on NISSC-II that has any proprietary IP that will need to transferred to NISSC-III?

The Government is not addressing proprietary informa�on on the NISSC II contract as part of this RFI.

37. For Objec�ve 4; what if the idea is new and really never tried before? Is it not tenable then?

Or is the intent to only u�lize methods/ideas with past performance?

The Government recognizes that recommenda�ons provided in response to this RFI are likely to be novel and unproven in nature; however, if any Respondees have prior experience in proving out any concepts or sugges�ons recommended in their response, that informa�on should be provided under Objec�ve #4. Once inputs are received, the Government will further evaluate any concepts for feasibility.

38. Is a small Business Set-aside required for this contract?

There are no restric�ons regarding small businesses within the scope of this RFI. The Government is highly interested in receiving inputs from large and small businesses as part of this request.

39. A�er SW/HW is passed from DevSecOps to integra�on, and is ops accepted, will the sustainment and maintenance side be solely responsible to effect repairs/updates or will the OEM have an opportunity to provide support?

The Government an�cipates crea�ng an opportunity to have the OEM provide support;

however, the mechanism through which that support will be provided has yet to be determined, and is a topic the Government would like addressed in responses for this

RFI.

40. Will it be desired to have language within the PWS of the DevSecOpsInt and S&M por�ons of the contract to allow for support to be provided to each other to rec�fy issues such as urgent and emergency repairs?

Yes; the Government recognizes the benefit of collabora�on between the DevSecOpsInt and S&M lines of effort, and would like recommenda�ons on how to accomplish teaming while maintaining two otherwise separate lines of effort.

41. Request for a ten (10) business day extension of its final white paper submission upon the Government’s collec�ve answers pos�ng to the original forum, as referenced in RFI paragraph 6.1.3.

The Government has extended the RFI due date to 3 May 2024 at 1400 MDT.