RMSLMDB_RFI_Questions_USG_Responses.pdf

Request for Information/Vendor Day for the Requirements Management System (RMS) Suite and Logistics Management Data Bank (LMDB) Programs

Solicitation Number: FA8770-16-R0002

Anonymous Vendor Questions & Government Responses

1. (PWS 1.2 and Section L) - Would the Government be willing to allow an 8(a) to qualify that does not hold a CMMI level II or above if their team member/sub-contractor holds a CMMI level II or above?

Lifting or reducing the CMMI limitation would expand the competition pool.

USG Response: The Government will not accept accreditations from proposed subcontractors.

However, the Government will accept an equivalent to CMMI Level 2. “Equivalents” will be evaluated on a case by case basis when proposals are received. Acceptance of equivalents will expand the competition pool while also providing assurance to the Government that contractor processes are sound.

2. (PWS and Section L) Would the Government be willing to provide the current staffing and org chart showing number of FTEs and skill categories along with any additional historical pricing information that is currently privy to the incumbent?

USG Response: The Government cannot provide this information. This data is considered financial information confidential to the incumbent contractor. Even under a FOIA request, this data could not be released pursuant to FOIA Exemption #4.

3. (PWS) Does the Government expect the awardee to hire incumbent personnel to provide the unique/institutionalized functional experience as required to meet some of the requirements?

USG Response: The Government will not evaluate proposals based on the hiring of incumbent personnel. Proposals will be evaluated purely on their ability to meet/exceed RMS/LMDB requirements. Labor mixes are a part of this evaluation, though the Government is not necessarily looking for specific individuals or incumbent personnel to appear in the proposals.

Personnel hiring decisions are the responsibility of contractor.

4. (PWS) The LOC for each system and sub-system/component would be helpful.

USG Response: This data is captured in PWS Appendix C as “SLOC.” However, this term was not included in the Glossary. The Glossary will be updated to include “SLOC” when the RFP is released.

5. (Section L 3.2: Table of Contents) – There is a requirement for Volume 1 (Executive Summary) to provide a Table of Contents (ToC) and a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) (which are not part of page count). However, Volume II (4.2.1) also has a requirement for a ToC and a CRM (redundant) and appears to be inclusive of page count. Can the Government confirm the need for two sets of

TOC/CRM and where they should be placed?

USG Response: Cross Reference Matrixes (CRM) may be used within a volume to conserve space at the offeror’s discretion. CRMs should not reference information outside that specific volume, as the outside references will not be evaluated. For instance, if Volume II references Volume III, that Volume III information will not be evaluated as part of Volume II.

The CRM in Volume 1 is not meant to be used for evaluation. This is a different reference tool that is used by the Government to navigate overall proposals (similar to the Table of Contents).

For the RFP release, the Volume 1 CRM will be renamed to further clarify.

6. (Section L, para. 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 Scenarios) – It appears that by answering our approach to these scenarios is, in essence, describing our methodology for the PWS sections. Much of these responses would very well be redundant information. Would the Government consider refining the response requirement to either just the scenarios or the PWS to be included in our 10/20 page response to

Vol II?

USG Response: The Government will evaluate proposals based on their ability to meet ALL the

Section L PWS Paragraphs and Scenarios. If the offeror believes that the Scenarios and

Paragraphs can be answered more concisely (with expanded scenario details, references within the volume, etc.) while also meeting all Section L requirements, offerors may shorten their answers at their discretion.

7. (Section L, para. 4.2.2.1, Subfactor 1) - Suggest providing the priority of the D200A maintenance

BCR as compared to the two discrepancies and whether or not the BCR was “rack and stacked” into a routine release.

USG Response: BCR information is captured in the PWS.

8. (Section L, para. 4.2.2.2, Subfactor 2) - As written, this scenario would only be known to the incumbent and therefore would not be a fair question for solicitation responders. Considering most contract awardees will likely hire the incumbent staff, they then would have the institutional knowledge to answer what the steps would be. It is our opinion that if this scenario stands as written, it will limit the competition pool and likely not provide the Government a fair competition pool as desired. Suggest rewording or eliminating the subfactor to increase the competition pool.

USG Response: Information required to answer the scenario is detailed in the PWS, Bidder’s

Library, and the BES BPD. Furthermore, the USG did not see a pattern of RFI responses stating

Scenario 2 is flawed.

9. (Section L, para. 5.2.2, Cost/Pricing) – Can the Government confirm that all CLINs will be provided and which CLINs will be FFP?

USG Response: The CLIN structure is captured in Section L and will be further detailed in the

Model Contract and Pricing Template, to be included in the RFP package.

10. (Past Performance) – Would the Government be willing to reduce the number of references required and also allow the references to come from either the prime or its critical sub-contractor teammate?

USG Response: The Government will not reduce this requirement.

11. (Section M) - Would the Government consider awarding multiple contracts instead of one consolidated contract? For instance, multiple awards to allow for different awardees for RMS, LMBD, and/or DD1000? Since platforms are different, this could encourage innovation. For example, would the Government entertain splitting out the contract for DD 1000 like it was previously? This approach could increase the competition pool as well.

USG Response: Market Research suggests that a considerable 8(a) competition pool exists for the contract as is. Dividing this contract would create additional administrative burdens on the

Government and would most likely result in an overall higher price.

12. (Section M) - Would the Government consider a Time and Material or Cost Plus Award Fee bid versus FFP for the sustainment CLIN? FFP may be a program risk without additional requirements provided in the Bidder’s Library as well as the existing org chart and labor categories. The incumbent will have the historical pricing data for bidding as FFP, a potential advantage that could limit the competitive pool.

USG Response: The majority of this effort will be maintenance and sustainment. Based on the defined nature of this requirement and limited risk, Time and Material or Cost Plus Award Fee contract types are not appropriate.

13. (Bidder’s Library) - Is the library not complete? What about the requirement and design specs for each sub-system?

USG Response: The complete Bidder’s Library will be included with the final released RFP package.

14. (PWS Section 1.2) - Section states, “The Contractor must demonstrate an understanding of the Air

Force Logistics and budgeting processes as they relate to RMS and LMDB.” - How do we demonstrate this?

USG Response: The PWS provides an overview of the RMS AND LMDB systems; the Bidder’s Library will provide even further details at RFP.

15. (PWS Section 1.2.9) - Approximately how many releases are expected annually for RMS and LMDB?

USG Response: The answer is in the PWS.

16. (PWS Section 1.5) - States “The Contractor shall provide systems surveillance for the systems described in this PWS, ensuring continuous system operations and coordinated scheduling of batch jobs and interfaces facilitating continued data exchange between sending and receiving systems.” - Is 24 X 365 monitoring required by contractor personnel?

USG Response: No

17. (PWS Section 1.5.1) - Please provide a number of inbound and outbound interfaces per sub-system.

USG Response: This data will be provided in the Bidder’s Library.

18. (PWS Section1.5.5) - Can sizing be provided for the Data Analysis Support? What is the process for identifying anomalies?

USG Response: These are typically small efforts included as part of routine Surveillance and Cyclical processes; when the activities require a larger effort to complete—they will be issued/tracked as an Action Item or ISR (1.7 PWS Table).

19. (PWS Section 1.5.7) –

User Account Management The contractor shall perform user account management activities to add, modify or delete user accounts for RMS and LMDB systems. These activities shall include, but may not be limited to, adding RMS D200 user permissions and profiles using CA-Top Secret.

Is it the Government’s intention to transition this activity to the contractor?

USG Response: This is a PWS requirement and the USG will not be performing this activity.

20. (PWS Para. 4.3 & 1.5.8) -

Hours of Work (PWS 4.3) The contractor shall work normal 8 hour work days and provide coverage during the minimum core hours 0900-1600 Monday through Friday, excluding official Government approved holidays. If variances are required from the core operating hours, the contractor shall obtain permission from the Project Lead and the COR. Permission can be obtained for a specific period of time and/or a specific project.

The contractor may be required to provide unscheduled operational assistance and problem resolution support. This support will be identified to the contractor in advance to the maximum extent practicable. Extended hours will be approved by the Program Manager and Contracting Officer.

DD1000 Support (PWS 1.5.8) The contractor shall also provide 24x7 on-call support to assist.

How will 24x7 on-call support be provided for DD1000 permission that must be obtained from the Project Lead and the COR as stated in the two paragraphs above?

USG Response: The Government expects the contractor to work 8 hour days to include core hours.

However, sparingly, there are times when system issues require work outside the normal 8 hour day (Weekends or Evenings). When this is required, hours may be shifted away from the normal work day to accommodate the issue, pending approval by the Program Manager and Contracting Officer. These shifted hours are not considered overtime and are included in the overall sustainment effort. The PWS requirement will be revised to clarify at RFP release.

21. (Section L 6. Volume IV – Past Performance) -

- States that the offeror must “Submit one (1) hard copy original plus two (2) hard copies and two (2) electronic copies.” It then references accordance with Table 1 Proposal Organization

- Table 1 states a total of one (1) hard copy, but this section 6 states a total of three (3). Which is correct?

USG Response: The Government intends to request 1 Hard Copy and Two Electronic Copies of each of the Volumes. Volumes I and II should be combined, while III, IV and V should be submitted separately. Submission requirements will be revised for the final RFP.

22. (Section L 6.2 Performance Surveys) -

- End of second paragraph (re. partners) states that “…each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts. Furnish the following info…..”

- Is each partner required to submit up to three (3) relevant contracts as discussed throughout Section 6.2?

USG Response: If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts (Section L Para. 6.2).

In short, if past performance is available for a teaming arrangement, provide as part of the proposal. If past performance is only available as separate entities, provide separate past performance information as part of the proposal.

23. (Section L, para. 6.1) – states, “…in the Past Three Years.” The rest of the document refers to “the past five years.” Please clarify which period is desired.

USG Response: The Government intends to consider past performance within the past FIVE years as relevant. This discrepancy will be revised for the final RFP.

24. (Section L, para. 3.2) – states, “… to include the PWS, CDRLs, CLINS, and Sections and M.”

Recommend updating to say “… to include the PWS, CDRLs, CLINS, and Sections L and M.”

USG Response: This will be revised for the final RFP.

25. (General Question) - What is the response due date for this SSS? The only date we could find was the 12/14 deadline date for submission of questions.

USG Response: This is not a SSS. This is a Request for Information.

26. (Section L, page 9) - It is not clear whether the “original” mentioned on pg. 9 is the single hard-copy

(which is NOT the “proposal of record”) or one of the electronic copies.

USG Response: The “original” “proposal of record” should be the electronic copy. This discrepancy will be revised for the final RFP.

27. (Section L, page 4) - Pg. 4 indicates that volumes can be submitted separately or combined, while

pg. 7 says that Volumes I & II can/should be combined w/Volume IV, while Volume III should be separate. What about Volume V?

USG Response: Volumes I and II should be combined while III, IV and V should be submitted separately. Submission requirements will be revised for the final RFP.

28. (Section L, page 9 & 19) - Pg. 9 indicates that each volume should be submitted in a separate binder, but pg.19 (Section 7.1.1, referring to Volume V) indicates that for the Contract Form, the “original copy” (presumably a hard copy) is to be submitted “under separate cover with no holes punched,” contradicting the earlier-stated requirement that the Volumes be submitted in a three-ring binder.

USG Response: This discrepancy will be revised for the final RFP.

29. (Section L, page 16) - Pg. 16, Past Performance (Volume IV) requests a hard copy original + 2

(additional) hard copies + 2 electronic copies. (Again, there is no submission deadline date specified).

USG Response: The submission deadline will be provided as part of the RFP cover page.

Furthermore, the Hard Copy versus Electronic Copy discrepancy will be revised for the final RFP.

30. (Section L, page 11, Section 4.2.2.1) - Is CMMI Level II appraisal required for responding to this solicitation? What would constitute a “similar credential”?

USG Response: “Equivalents” will be evaluated on a case by case basis when proposals are received. Acceptance of equivalents will expand the competition pool while also providing assurance to the Government that contractor processes are sound.

31. (Section L, page 15) – For the Total Price section, there is a reference to Price Template, RFP Attach

7, Tab 4. However, this solicitation is specifically NOT an RFP. To what does this refer?

USG Response: The Price Template will be provided as part of the final RFP. This RFI was meant to generate contractor feedback for Section L, Section M, and the PWS, to be included in the RFP.

32. (Section L) - There are three different references to the required Cross-reference matrix: pg 9

(Section 3.2 – Volume II), pg. 10 (Section 4.2.1 – Volume IV) and pg. 21 (Section 5.5.4 – Volume V), and cross-Volume cross-references are prohibited. Where should the Cross-reference matrix be included?

USG RESPONSE: Cross Reference Matrixes (CRM) may be used within a volume to conserve space at the offeror’s discretion. CRMs should not reference information outside that specific volume as the outside references will not be evaluated. For instance, if Volume II references Volume III, that

Volume III information will not be evaluated as part of Volume II.

The CRM in Volume 1 is not meant to be used for evaluation. This is a different reference tool that is used by the Government to navigate overall proposals (similar to the Table of Contents).

For the RFP release, the Volume 1 CRM will be renamed to further clarify.

33. (Section L, pages 13 & 21) - Similarly, GFE is referenced on pg. 13 in the Cost/Price Volume III and again on pg. 21 in the Model Contract Volume V. Where should that information be included?

USG RESPONSE: If the vendor proposes Hardware/Software, this data is captured in both Volume

3 (Cost/Price Proposal) and Volume 5 (Contract Documentation). GFE will generate a cost that should be included in Volume 3. This same cost will carry into CLIN prices captured in Volume 5.

Furthermore, in Volume 5, a list of GFE will need to be included in “Section J” and specific clauses will need to be added to the contract (by the USG) prior to award.

34. (Section L, para. 7.1.2) - seems to require reference to data in a different volume, but this practice is specifically discouraged on pg. 8 (Section 2.2.4).

USG RESPONSE: “Section B” refers to the Model Contract CLINs. This pricing information requirement will be clarified in the final RFP.

35. (Section L, para 4.2.2.1) - The instructions state “how the offeror meets the requirement to demonstrate mature process management abilities, by holding a Capability Maturity Model

Integration Level II or higher appraisal or similar credential.” Question: Would the Government consider asking for proof of current SCAMPI A appraisal or current evidence of certification for similar credential?

USG RESPONSE: “Equivalents” will be evaluated on a case by case basis when proposals are received. The Government will not be listing or requesting specific equivalents; rather, the offeror must propose and provide a defense of any suggested equivalent.

36. (Section L) - In regards to past performance criteria, does each past performance reference require mainframe experience or will the government accept mainframe experience in the aggregate from the offeror?

USG RESPONSE: Past Performance will be rated subjectively based on an overall/aggregate review of all provided experience. Ideally, all areas of the PWS will be covered in each Past Performance

Submission, including Mainframe experience. However, if in the aggregate, all areas are covered, the offeror may still receive a high Relevancy Rating.

In other words, is the Government looking for mainframe Past Performance only or would Past Performance addressing all areas of the PWS be acceptable?

USG RESPONSE: While mainframe experience is critical, all areas of the PWS should be addressed in the aggregate of the Past Performance submissions.

37. (General) - Would the government please clarify the start date for the period of performance?

USG RESPONSE: The start date will be included in the final RFP.

38. (General) - Would the government consider performing this work in the contractor’s facility?

USG RESPONSE: No. The Government intends to house RMS/LMDB Maintenance/Sustainment within the Government facility.

39. (General) - What level of interaction is expected/needed for Escape/MROi/Item Master or similar coordination? Is data preparation for migration required?

USG RESPONSE: Once the PMO is tasked with this effort, the contractor will be notified accordingly, i.e., the PMO may submit an Information Support Request (ISR) for the requested tasker.

40. (General) Will Teaming Agreements with subcontractors be required as part of the RFP Response Package?

USG RESPONSE: Teaming Agreements with subcontractors may be provided as part of the proposal but are not required. Teaming Agreements/Teaming Arrangements in a partnership, however, are required per Section L, Section 6.2.