Second Round RFP Questions 19 AUG.pdf

Industry Questions, Government Answers – Second Round

Draft Request for Proposal FA8750-12-R-0002 and Final Request for Proposal FA8750-12-R-0002

19 AUG 2011

1. Two of the Air Force Publications have been superseded. The publications listed are in paragraphs 4.3.1.6 (AFSSI 5021) and 4.3.1.6.2 (AFI 33-202) specifically:

AFSSI 5021 was superseded by AFI33-138 in November of 2005. Is AFI33-138 the correct instruction (versus AFSSI 5021) for use in this program?

AFI33-202 was rescinded and superseded by AFI33-202V1 in February of 2008. Then in

December of 2008 V1 was superseded by AFI33-200. Is AFI33-200 (versus AFI 33-

202) the correct instruction for use in this program?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Air Force Publications listed in the Statement of Work have been rescinded; however there should be no impact on the proposal preparation. Procedures for dealing with AFCERTS are still the same. Offerors should use the most current publications.

2. Sample Task Order 0001 DD254 page 1 of 12 in Block I Other (specify) states "AIS

(Computer Security); See Item 13". Item 13 states: "Revision 1, Department of Defense

Overprint to the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual Supplement, dated 1 Apr 2004, also applies. ..." As the latest version of the NISPOM was provided on

28 Feb 2006 version of the NISPOM is the reference to the 1 Apr 2004 version of the

NISPOM correct? If so, please provide an electronic copy of the 2004 version.

RESPONSE: Yes, the 1 Apr 2004 version also applies when a contractor requires access to SCI. The 28 Feb 2006 version of the NISPOM did not supersede the

Department of Defense Overprint to the National Industrial Security Program Operating

Manual Supplement, dated 1 Apr 2004. An electronic copy will not be provided – offerors can obtain the PDF document online

(http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/nispom_dod_overprint_rev1.pdf).

3. Do the Air Force Instructions concerning Information Assurance also apply to Sample

Task Order 0001 in respect to Certification and Accreditation of the system?

RESPONSE: The system described in Sample Task Order 0001 is intended to run in a

USAF environment. Therefore, any applicable AFIs should be taken into account.

4. Attachment 10, Sample Task Order 0001 paragraph 4.1 calls for the design, development and implementation of a prototype Next-Gene SRDN for a military research and development facility. Among the requirements for this network are the requirements that it must consist of 100 end nodes conforming to 2010 (or newer) USAF Quarterly

Enterprise Buy (QEB) minimum specification for an Expandable Mini-Tower and end nodes must be capable of running varying operating systems. Since Mac OS X can only http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/nispom_dod_overprint_rev1.pdf be run on Apple manufactured hardware can we assume that Mac OS X is not a required operating system?

RESPONSE: Sample Task Order 0001 does not specify the use of any one particular operating system but does specify that end nodes be capable of running ―varying operating systems‖. Therefore, neither Mac OS X nor any other specific operating system is considered a ―required operating system‖. (QEB – now stands for Quantum Enterprise

Buy).

5. Is the Next-GEN SRDN a standalone network or is it desired that this network be integrated into an existing domain and or enterprise architecture?

Is the requirement for the Next-Gen SRDN that it contain all of the networking and security infrastructure to enable it to connect directly to an Internet service or should it be designed to sit behind and existing top level architecture (TLA)?

RESPONSE: Sample Task Order 0001 dictates that the Next-Gen SRDN ―may not block access to any external web sites‖. Therefore, the network must be connected to the

Internet in some fashion. The individual offeror may determine whether or not to integrate the Next-Gen SRDN into an existing infrastructure as part of their approach.

6. Please provide your definition of ―timely‖ as used in Attachment 10, Sample Task Order

0001 paragraph 4.1.1.6?

RESPONSE: In the context of Sample Task Order 0001, the term ―timely‖ is intended to mean faster than current practices.

7. Please provide your definition of ―real-time‖ as used in Attachment 10, Sample Task

Order 0001 paragraph 4.1.1.7?

RESPONSE: In the context of Sample Task Order 0001, the term ―real-time‖‖ is intended to mean simultaneous.

8. Please provide your definition of ―situational awareness‖ as used in Attachment 10, Sample Task Order 0001 paragraph 4.1.2.1?

RESPONSE: In the context of Sample Task Order 0001, the term ―situational awareness‖ is intended to mean ―the ability to understand and gather/analyze information across the aspects of the network mentioned in 4.1.2.1.‖

9. Please provide a list of the ―mission essential functions (MEFs)‖ for which a systematic assessment are required as stated in Attachment 10, Sample Task Order 0001 paragraph

4.1.3.2?

RESPONSE: The mission is to perform and secure research and development. The

Next-Gen SRDN is a tool to support this mission. The mission essential functions

(MEFs) of the SRDN are any factors that enable operators to perform secure online research and development.

10. Please provide your definition of ―atomic cyber process‖ as used in Attachment 10, Sample Task Order 0001 paragraph 4.1.3.3?

RESPONSE: In the context of Sample Task Order 0001 the term ―atomic cyber process‖ is intended to mean the lowest architectural level at which a system generates, processes, stores, or transmits data. This information can be found in the article published in the Journal of Strategic Security on this topic. (Volume IV Issue 2 2011, pp. 61-

74/DOI: 5038/1944-0472.4.2.4)

11. What is the type and bandwidth of the Internet connection to which the Next-Gen SRDN will be connected?

RESPONSE: The type and bandwidth of the Internet connection to which the Next-Gen

SRDN will be connected is dependent upon the Offeror‘s approach.

12. Reference: Section I Contract Clauses – DFARS 252.239-7000 Protection Against

Compromising Emanations

This clause states the following:

―(a) The Contractor shall provide or use only information technology, as specified by the Government, that has been accredited to meet the appropriate information assurance requirements of—

(1) The National Security Agency National TEMPEST Standards (NACSEM No.

5100 or NACSEM No. 5100A, Compromising Emanations Laboratory Test Standard, Electromagnetics (U)); or

(2) Other standards specified by this contract, including the date through which the required accreditation is current or valid for the contract.‖

It is this Offeror‘s understanding that DFARS 252.239-7000 does not apply to Sample

Task Orders 0001 or 0002. Please confirm.

RESPONSE: Tempest Requirements exist as shown on the DD254 for Sample Tasks

0001 and 0002; therefore the DFARS clause is applicable.

13. Reference RIK-L008 Proposal Preparation Instructions – Cost (Volume II):

Please confirm that offerors are only required to submit detailed cost information for subcontractors that are participating in Sample Task Orders 0001 and 0002. This guidance is stated in the Q&As requesting clarification regarding the instructions in the draft RFP.

RESPONSE: For the purposes of Volume II, cost proposals pertaining to the Sample

Tasks 0001 and 0002 only are required. The Offeror shall also complete the FFP Rate

Tables as part of their Volume II submission.

14. Reference RIK-L013(b): Does the Government expect proposal/proposal sections submitted up to the Collateral Secret Level be submitted under a separate submission or can it be submitted under a separate cover within the overall unclassified submission provided the submission is clearly marked in accordance with security requirements?

RESPONSE: It is the Offeror‘s discretion if they wish to submit classified (secret) sections of their proposal under separate cover from the unclassified version, or submit unclassified and classified (secret) proposals together. All sections and pages regardless of submission method must be marked appropriately in accordance with security requirements.

15. Reference RIK-L006 (c)(3): The direction states type size will be no smaller than 10 point character height (vertical size) and no more than an average of 12 characters per inch. Does this direction apply to tables and graphics? Typically we use 8-9 point character font in tables and graphics, please clarify.

RESPONSE: 10 point character font limit should be used throughout the proposal, including tables and graphics.

16. Is it the government's intent that bidders use a blended rate for the following labor categories which have different salary ranges? They are included on the Tables as one category now as opposed to separate categories in the draft RFP: Principal electronic/Electrical Engineer, Principal Software Engineer Principal Systems Analyst

Principal Computer Engineer.

RESPONSE: The Offeror will propose a single blended rate with the understanding that this will be a not-to-exceed rate on all FFP task orders throughout the life of the contract.

17. Is fee to be included on travel, other direct costs, material and facilities?

RESPONSE: Proposals should be prepared according to the Offeror‘s company policy.

However, fee should not be built into the line item costs and should be listed separately.

18. Is the cover page part of the page count for each volume?

RESPONSE: Yes, the cover page is part of the page count for each volume.

19. Is a transmittal letter permitted?

RESPONSE: Per RIK-L007 (a)(1)(i), Offerors may included a proposal forwarding letter in Volume I.

20. The RFP reference FAR 52.215-01, which says: ―Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent‘s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.‖ What evidence is needed, and can we submit it now?

RESPONSE: Confirmation on company letterhead verifying the agent‘s authority shall be sufficient and should be submitted with the Offeror‘s proposal.

21. RIK-L008(d) on page L-13 states that "the Contracting Officer requires that the information shown on the Table of Contents at the end of this provision be included in the cost proposal...Do not omit any topics or elements. The Table of Contents (on page

L-16) lists Fringe Benefits and Labor Overhead separately. Many companies include

Fringe Benefits as part of its DCAA-reviewed provisional or FPRA overhead rates. May these two elements be combined in order to be compliant with a contractor's standard estimating methodology and consistent with its DCAA submission?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Offeror may include Fringe Benefits as part of its DCAA-reviewed provisional or FPRA overhead rates. Per the Cost Proposal Table of Contents item 2, ―Summary by cost element and fee for each Sample Task Order (Sample Task

Orders 0001 and 0002) (Use format below). Cost elements which do not pertain to the

Offeror's proposal may be omitted. Do not lump elements together. Cost elements peculiar to a particular offeror which are not listed may be added. Elements may be rearranged to fit an Offeror's pricing structure.”

22. RIK-M001(d)(1)(iv) on page M-3 discusses the evaluation of Subfactor 4: Small

Business and Historically Black College or University and Minority Institution

(HBCU/MI) Participation including an assessment of the Offeror in complying with requirements of FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9. These FAR clauses do not include a requirement for a separate HBCU/MI goal nor does RIK-L007(a)(4) on pages L-9-11 provide any instructions to include a separate HBCU/MI goal. Please clarify what is required in Section L to support the Section M evaluation regarding HBCU/MI.

RESPONSE: Per RIK-L007 (a)(4)(ii)(A) and (B), Offerors shall provide a discussion to which HBCU/MIs will be utilized in addition to the other SB categories listed. Per

DFARS 219.704, Subcontracting plan requirements, the goal for use of small disadvantaged business concerns shall include subcontracts with historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions (see Subpart 226.70), in addition to subcontracts with small disadvantaged business concerns.

23. AFFARS 5352.215-9000 requires contractors ―to acquire or be able to acquire a TOP

SECRET SCI facility clearance...‖ within 12 months of award. The Defense Security

Service (DSS) only grants facility clearances at Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret levels.

Should AFFARS 5352.215-9000 as cited be interpreted to require contractors to obtain the ability to accredit a SCI facility following award? If so, will AFRL sponsor such accreditation under this contract?

RESPONSE: After award, contractors must be able to have or the ability to acquire

TS/SCI facility clearance. AFRL/RI will sponsor such accreditation as requirements arise. (Note that TS/SCI safeguarding (e.g., in an SCI certified vault facility or SCI accredited computer system) is NOT a requirement for this effort.)

24. RIK-L007(a)(3)(ii) requires offerors to provide names and social security numbers of personnel cleared or clearable that will be assigned to this program ―if queried by this solicitation in Section L provision at AFFARS 5352.215-9000.‖ Our interpretation is that offerors currently possessing a facility clearance and safeguarding capability do not need to take further action in conjunction with proposal submittal. Can you confirm or provide clarification?

RESPONSE: Offerors currently possessing a facility clearance and safeguarding capability at the SECRET level need not take any action at this time.

25. Our interpretation of RIK-B003.(b) is that it outlines an ordering procedure that essentially guarantees right of first refusal on task orders to small business prime awardees as long as they declare they are capable of performing the task order with at least 50% small business participation and that they intend to bid. Given that small business primes will be unlikely to state they cannot perform any given task order by leveraging the full capabilities of their teams, almost definitely including large businesses where necessary, this creates significant risk that large business awardees could invest heavily in ACT without any likelihood of seeing and competing for task order awards.

Can the Government clarify the intent of the ordering procedures as written to ensure competition on task orders where large businesses can feature significant (up to 50% or more) participation by small businesses exclusively teamed with them?

RESPONSE: Per the Ordering Procedures, if at least two small businesses state that (1) at least 50 percent of the cost of performance incurred for personnel will be expended for employees of the small business, and (2) that they intend to submit a proposal on the subject RFP, the requirement will be considered for a set-aside for small business. If the requirement is not suitable for a small business set-aside, the requirement will be competed amongst all ACT awardees.

While small business primes can utilize large and small businesses as part of their overall approach, the small business prime itself must be able to complete at least 50 percent of the cost of performance incurred for personnel in order to meet the small business set-aside criteria.

The assumption that a small business can team with large/small businesses to satisfy the

50% participation is incorrect. They cannot leverage other small businesses to meet this percentage unless a formal arrangement is in place, such as a joint venture. If it is found that during performance the small business prime did not actually perform at least 50% of the work, they will not be in compliance with the contract terms and conditions (FAR

52.219-14).

It is anticipated Large Businesses will have plenty of opportunity to propose under this

IDIQ contract since at least 2 small businesses must fulfill the criteria identified in the

Ordering Procedures for an order to be considered a small business set aside.

For large businesses, it is reasonable to assume there is risk associated with investing in proposal development for IDIQ contracts. On any multiple award IDIQ contract, prime contractors are only guaranteed the minimum ordering amount IAW FAR 16.504;

therefore a certain amount of risk is assumed.

26. The Q&A sessions for the Draft RFP contained a great deal of information regarding the

Government‘s interpretation or clarification of the requirements not currently reflected in the RFP. Can offerors assume all prior answers are still valid with regard to the final

RFP? If there is conflict or discrepancy between the final RFP and the previous Q&A, should offerors interpret the final RFP to be definitive guidance?

RESPONSE: All prior answers are still valid with regard to the final RFP, unless directed otherwise by the final RFP or Q&A or amendments thereto. Offerors should consider the final RFP to be definitive guidance.

27. RIK-L018 defines levels of effort for the two sample tasks in terms of person-years, each consisting of 1920 hours. The same section discusses periods of performance longer than a calendar year. Should offerors assume the Government‘s estimate of level of effort is level throughout this period of performance, or that it is normalized to the calendar year?

For example, Sample Task 0001 is estimated at 106 person-years (FTE) and has period of performance of ~18 months. Should offerors assume this is a 106 FTE task where each

FTE (nominally 1920 hours per year) is assigned for 18 months, or should offerors assume this is a ~71 FTE task where each FTE is assigned a total of 1920 hours over 18 months? The discrepancy has significant potential impact on total evaluated price. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: For Sample Task Order 0001, the government estimates that 106 person years (of engineering, scientific, and/or technical labor) will be required at 1920 hours per person year. Therefore, the total number of hours (of engineering, scientific, and/or technical labor) the government estimates this task should entail is 106 * 1920 = 203,520 hours over a period of 18 months. The same principal can be used for Sample Task

Order 0002. The government has not made any estimates as to how the hours will be distributed over the allotted time, the number of employees the man years/hours will be divided up amongst, or the mix of technical labor categories. More importantly, as stated in RIK-L018 (a), "Offerors are neither expected nor encouraged to attempt to make their proposals precisely fit the government's estimate". In addition, the number of hours used as a measure of a ―person-year‖ may vary from offeror to offeror depending on vacation time offered to employees, etc.

28. Sample Task 0001 requires the Next-Gen SRDN to be delivered at AFRL in Rome, NY.

Should offerors assume physical space is provided within Government facilities for this delivery? If so, what (if any) minimal GFE/GFP would be offered (IT equipment, phones, etc.)? Will AFRL provide core services such as security support, system administration, network engineering, etc. that are not covered by the current labor categories, but are required to operate the resultant solution? Please clarify.

RESPONSE: For Sample Task Order 0002, offerors may assume that physical space will be available at the Air Force Research Laboratory's Information directorate in Rome, NY for the delivery and installation of the Next-Gen SRDN. This physical space will

NOT be Government-furnished property as defined in FAR Part 45. Paragraph 4.1.4 directs the performer to "identify any special requirements needed for the Next-Gen

SRDN that would not be available in a typical computer facility". Examples of requirements that do not need to be identified are: standard AC power connections, standard analog or digital telephone connections, an Ethernet, fiber, or cable connection to an internet service provider, "computer lab" type furniture, and room lighting. Specific computing and networking equipment is intended to be procured and delivered by the performer as part of the sample task. Core support services (such as security support, system administration, network engineering, etc.) needed to maintain the Next-Gen

SRDN post-delivery are NOT part of this Sample Task Order.

29. For Sample Task Order 0001, is the intent of the C&A and Operational Transition section to only address the operation within AFRL's facility? And, if so, what networks will the

SRDN be connected to within the AFRL facility (Internet only, NIPRnet, SIPRnet, all of these)? Or is the intent to discuss C&A and transition with respect to an eventual Air

Force operational user?

RESPONSE: According to Sample Task Order 0001, paragraph 4.1.4, the SRDN will be delivered and installed at the Air Force Research Laboratory, Information

Directorate, in Rome New York. This is the intended site of its operational use. One of the specifications detailed in 4.1 is that the network may not "block" access to any external website. This is intended to mean that standard users of the network must be able to access any website that is typically accessible by a home user over a commercial connection. Access to government-owned networks is NOT required.

30. RIK-L008, Table of Contents (3), Page 16 of 27 and RIK-L018: Will the government provide separate CLINS for material and travel?

RESPONSE: For the purposes of this RFP, the Government will not be providing separate CLINS for material or travel.

31. RIK-L008, Table of Contents (2 and 3), Pages 15-16 of 27 and RIK-L018: Please provide guidance for the government requirements for item #2 (Summary by Cost Element) and

Item #3 (Summary for Each Cost Element). Is it the government‘s intent for the contractor to provide CLIN level cost summary in item #3?

RESPONSE: Section RIK-L008 (i) 2-2 requires a summary of the total dollars for each cost element while (i) 2-3 requires a more detailed summary/breakout of how the dollars for each cost element were derived.

32. Section RIK-L009(b)(1), Page L – 19 of 27 (Section 1 SOW): Please confirm that the evaluation factors for Technical Volume, Section 1 (SOW) are limited to only Subfactors

3 and 4 of Factor 1 (Section M, RIK-M001,(d),(1),(iii) and RIK-M001,(d),(1),(iiii) ).

RESPONSE: Yes, the evaluation factors for Technical Volume, Section 1 (SOW) are limited to only Subfactors 3 and 4 of Factor 1 (Section M, RIK-M001 (d)(1)(iii) and

RIK-M001(d)(1)(iv).

33. RIK-L007 (a)(4)(i)(A): The RFP addresses SB, SDVOSB, HUBZone, SDB (to include

HBCU/MI, ANC and all Tribal organizations), and WOSB categories. Will there be a goal for Veteran Owned Small Business?

RESPONSE: The DoD has not specified a goal for VOSB and therefore a goal is not provided in RIK-L007 (4)(i)(A). However, a separate VOSB goal is required to be included in proposed subcontracting plans per FAR 52.219-9.

34. Section L, RIK-L007 (ii), Small Business Participation Plan, page 10 of 27

The text reads ―If the Offeror is a small business concern (as defined by the North

American Industry Classification System [NAICS] Code applicable to this solicitation) the Offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation Plan that contains the following information:…‖. Please confirm that this applies to large businesses as well?

RESPONSE: Paragraph (ii) pertains only to small business Offerors.

35. Section L, RIK-L007 (iii) (A), page 11 of 27, last sentence of paragraph (A).

Please define the phrase ―instant procurement‖?

RESPONSE: ―Instant procurement‖ relates to the Agile Cyber Technology contract.

36. Sample Task Order 0001, 4.1, Page 2: Sample Task 0001 states that the proposed SRDN, ―May not ―block‖ access to any external web sites‖. Question: Presumably, this means that the SRDN will only operate at the unclassified level? Please explain what access to external web sites is required. Question: Does the phrase ―external web sites‖ refer to

Internet websites or some other kind of external web site?

RESPONSE: "May not ‗block‘ access to any external web sites" is intended to mean that standard users of the network must be able to access any website that is typically accessible by a home user over a commercial connection. Access to government-owned or classified networks is NOT required.