QA_With_Industry_Round_Three___24_Mar_17.pdf

Industry Questions and Answers ‐ Draft Request for Proposal (RFP), FA8750‐17‐R‐0001, dated 15 Feb 2017 ‐ Round 3 24 March 2017

Reference Section L, RIK‐L007, (a)(1)(v) Question To follow up on the question and answer released on 15 February and in reference to the answer to the question below, it does not appear clarity was provided on the Secret safeguarding. Is this something that the Government can provide further information on? Specifically is the intent of the Government to have the contractor generate or receive (or both) Secret materials? Also, if the contractor can demonstrate the ability and commitment to get this capability would that be sufficient for the purpose of the bid? " Question (From 15 February Q&A): 5352.215‐9000 Facility Clearance (May 1996) (tailored): This section specifies the contractor must meet Top Secret facility clearance and Secret safeguarding requirements at the time of “proposal submission.” During Industry Days, there was mentioned that the Government would grant/release DD‐254 which would cover all contractors which currently don’t meet these requirements. Secondly, it was previously heard that the “Secret safeguarding” requirement would not be enforced until time of award (~Aug 18). Can the Government please clarify the precise timing of when these two security requirements will be enforced? Would the Government consider changing the requirement to a condition for award? If the Government feels the risk is too great, would the Government consider allowing companies without a clearance to provide a plan and schedule to achieve their clearance prior to award?

Answer (From 15 February Q&A): There is a draft DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification, listed as Attachment 4 to the draft RFP. This form will be completed at the time Offerors are selected for award. Additional DD Form 254's may be completed on an order by order basis. Secondly, the Government has decided to maintain its position on requiring Offerors to have a Top Secret Facility Clearance at the time of proposal. The following data points were taken into account to reach this determination:

1. IDIQ Performance: The Government requires Offerors to possess a Top Secret Facility Clearance at time of proposal submission to ensure timely and compliant performance, staffing of key positions, and avoidance of delays or increased costs that would introduce unacceptable risk to the acquisition.

2. Source Selection Discussions: The Government requires the ability to conduct discussions and clarifications with offerors at the Top Secret level during the Source Selection process.

3. Adequate Competition: The Government has determined through extensive market research that there is an adequate pool of qualified potential offerors that currently possess the required facility clearance for this solicitation."

Answer The draft DD Form 254 is not a form that enables the Government to cover Contractors which currently do not meet the proposal requirements.

The form is for Offeror's to fill out (Blocks 6.a. through 8.c.), and upon award will be completed by the Government. As stated in the Facility Clearance requirements, Offerors must have Facility Clearance at the Top Secret Level and safeguarding capability at the Secret Level at time of proposal submission. The intent is that Offerors will be able to ensure timely and compliant performance, staffing of key positions, and avoidance of delays or increased cost that would introduce unacceptable risk to the acquisition. The Government is maintaining their position on requiring Top Secret Level Facility Clearance and Secret Safeguarding at time of proposal submission.

Reference Sample Order 0001, 4.1 Question Does the Government have a conceptual timeframe for development of SCORE (i.e.. 6, 12, 18 months)?

Answer Please see Section L, RIK‐L005 (c)(3), CLIN Structure for Sample Order 0001. Delivery of SCORE software would be at 60 months.

Reference Sample Order 0001, 4.1 Question Does the Government envision SCORE interoperability with any Coalition (UK, Can, AUS, etc.) systems.....including potential secure data transfer across “coalition” security enclaves.

Industry Questions and Answers ‐ Draft Request for Proposal (RFP), FA8750‐17‐R‐0001, dated 15 Feb 2017 ‐ Round 3

Answer No, coalition interoperability was not envisioned by the authors at the time of the sample task order creation.

Reference Sample Order 0001, 4.1.1 Question Is the requirement for “threat avoidance and next generation cyber defense” pertain to the unclassified enclave only (the portion directly connected to the internet)?

Answer No Reference Sample Order 0001, 4.2.1 Question Is “cyber enabled” infrastructure limited to US Government /DoD/ IC infrastructure, or does it include privately‐owned but critical infrastructure

Answer Cyber enabled infrastructure is not limited by asset ownership.

Reference Sample Order 0001, 4.4.1.2 Question What is the definition (or boundaries) for “friendly cyber systems and missions”...does this imply US only government/military systems...or does the scope include Coalition friendly cyber systems?

Answer The term "friendly" is dictated by mission and does not imply system ownership by any specific entity.

Reference Sample Order 0001 Question Does Sample Order 0001 operate within NIPR, SIPR, and JWICS and comply with respective regulations and policies for each?

Answer The specific networks used are to be provided within the offeror's approach. In the case the offeror should choose to leverage existing Government networks within their approach, it is expected the proposed approach will comply with respective regulations and policies for each.

Reference Sample Order 0001 Question If these networks are NIPR, SIPR and JWICS, is it required to deploy this capability? And do we need to account for the DASWG and JCAP approval process?

Answer All regulations pertaining to any network or resources proposed must be followed.

Reference Sample Order 0001, 4.3.1.1 Question Does Sample Order 0001, Section 4.3.1.1, require the buildout of a honeypot in a separate isolated unclassified environment?

Answer 4.3.1.1 does not require the approach to include a honeypot.

Reference Attachment 16, Pricing Template Question The pricing template in the draft RFP dated February 15 applies G&A to total costs. Would government allow us to deviate from the Pricing model in the RFP so that we can apply G&A to all costs other than subcontractor costs and apply a much lower rate for pass through subcontracted work?

Answer Yes, Offerors should apply indirect rates to the appropriate cost allocation bases according to their cost accounting system. The formulas in the pricing template may be modified to allow Offerors to apply different G&A rates to different allocation bases.

Reference 4.3.1.6 Question In Section 4.3.1.6, AFSSI 5021 is listed as the doctrinal guidance for required vulnerability advisory acknowledgement. AFSSI 5021 has been superseded multiple times, most recently by AFI 17‐301. Will the Government provide updated requirements regarding vulnerability advisories and countermeasure implementation?

Industry Questions and Answers ‐ Draft Request for Proposal (RFP), FA8750‐17‐R‐0001, dated 15 Feb 2017 ‐ Round 3

Answer If the instruction has been superseded, the Government recommends using the latest version of the instruction. The SOW will be updated at a later date to reflect the most current guidance.

Reference RIK‐L006(c)(1) Question Will an 11” x 17” fold out page used for charts, tables, or diagrams count as one or two pages of content?

Answer In accordance with RIK‐L006(c )(1), 11 x 17 inch foldouts may be used for charts, tables, or diagrams, and not used for text. They will count as one

(1) page.

Reference RIK‐L011 (a)(2) and RIK‐L005 Question Please confirm that per your guidance in RIK‐L011 (a)(2) and RIK‐L005, offerors are not to include their response to WD 4.7 in Volume III Technical.

Answer The response to Sample Order 0001 Work Description, para 4.7, reporting, should be included in the Management Volume (IV), in accordance with

RIK‐L012

Reference RIK‐L006 Question Will the Government consider increasing Volume III Technical page limit from 50 to 75 pages? The additional pages are needed to respond to the additional requirements in SOW 4.1.11 of the revised DRFP of 15Feb17, which brings to 92 the total number of SOW and WD tasks that offerors must address.

Answer The page limit will remain 50 pages.

Reference RIK‐L007 (a) (v) Question Regarding the Secret Safeguarding Capability requirement:

Question 1.a: Would a non‐accredited SCIF fulfill the Government’s “secret safeguarding” requirement?

Question 1.b: If not, would leasing an accredited space meet the Government’s requirement, and if so, what documentation/certification would need to be submitted to meet the Government’s requirement?

Question 1.c: Would the government consider changing the “secret safeguarding” requirement to be a condition to be met post‐award?

Answer Question 1.a: No, Secret Safeguarding Capabilities are required at time of proposal submission, and a non‐accredited SCIF does not fulfill this requirement. Question 1.b: Please speak with DSS regarding leasing an accredited SCIF. In addition, if you are able to lease an accredited SCIF, once leased please ensure your company is listed as having Secret Safeguarding Capabilities by DSS. Lastly, so as not to confuse potential Offerors, having an accredited SCIF is not the only way to acquire Secret Safeguarding Capabilities, please bear in mind other options. Question 1.c.: No, please see question 1.

Reference RIK‐L011 (a)(2) Question Requirement states: “Technical proposal will be prepared in the same sequence as the Statement of Work and Work Description for Sample Task

Order 0001.”

This requirement has led to two previous questions: Feb 13: Question 67, and Feb 23: Question 12, regarding how the Government would like the technical response in Volume III structured. The answers to these questions seem to be contradictory. Can the Government please clarify how it would like the proposal to be structured –following the order set out in (a)(2) or the one set out in (c)(1) and (c)(2)?

Answer In reference to RIK‐L011(a)(2), when responding to the SOW and Sample Order 0001, follow the numbering sequence of the SOW and Sample Order 0001. RIK‐L011(c) (1) and (c) (2), include the detailed information and requirements that are required in your responses to the SOW and Sample Order 0001, within the numbering sequences laid out within the respective documents.

Reference RIK‐L011 (b)(1) and (b)(2)

Industry Questions and Answers ‐ Draft Request for Proposal (RFP), FA8750‐17‐R‐0001, dated 15 Feb 2017 ‐ Round 3

Question This requirement states that the technical approach sections will be evaluated as per RIK‐M001, yet the evaluation criterion evaluates the types of personnel and the Offeror's corporate experience. The Government intends for these technical approach sections to include a description of the types of personnel (c)(1)(vi) and (c)(2)(viii) but not the Offeror’s corporate experience. Shall we insert corporate experience in these Sections 1 and 2?

Answer The Offeror's Corporate experience is required in the Management Volume, per RIK‐L012 (a)(5).

Reference RIK‐L011 (c)(2)(viii)( E) Question This requirement pertains to the personnel hired to carry out the Sample Order 0001. However it states: “Experience in each of the 8 technical areas and be able to reference previous examples of solutions delivered to the government within the scope of the ACT 2 SOW.”

Can the Government please clarify whether this is referring to personnel or rather to corporate experience. We suggest this requirement be transferred to the management volume as corporate experience.

Answer The reference above is outdated, and is no longer a requirement in the updated RFP.

Reference RIK‐L012 Question “APPLIES TO STATEMENT OF WORK, AND SAMPLE ORDER 0001”

The placement of this sentence is a bit confusing. Can the Government please explain why it introduces the instructions of the Management Volume.

Answer Please see the Cross Reference Matrix, Attachment 7, for applicable sections.

Reference SEMP, 4.1.1.2.3 Question “Where sections in the SEMP require information to be conveyed that was previously provided as part of the performers overall ACT 2 proposal, reference the section and page number of the ACT 2 proposal to keep redundancies between documents to a minimum.”

Can the Government please confirm that this is referring to the Cross Reference Matrix?

Answer No. In order to reduce duplication within proposals, the Government is requesting that if there is a section of the SEMP in which your response may be a duplication of a previous response in another area of your proposal, respond to that section of the SEMP with the location/section of your original response (reference the section and page numbers).