2nd_Draft_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_FBO.pdf

Document Page / Section / Table Questions Government Responses

General

Will the government post a version of the Draft RFP version 2 with tracked-changes turned on? This will allow us to compare what has changed between the original Draft RFP issued March

23, 2017 and the version 2 Draft RFP issued June 20, 2017.

No. The Government does not anticipate a release of the attached documents in editable form until the Final RFP is released. The purpose of the draft is to provide industry with a preview of the information prior to Final release.

General

To encourage greater competition, would the Government consider allowing Large Businesses who are a part of a JV to also

Subcontract with another Small Business?

No. As stated in Section L of the draft

RFP, teaming/subcontracting is not permitted at the IDIQ level. Offerors may team at the task order level.

General

To allow Small Businesses the greatest opportunity to compete with JVs, will the Government consider the Past Performance of a Subcontractor? If so, up to how many Subcontractor Past

Performances may be submitted?

No. The Government will only allow the

Past Performance of subcontract work "if" one of the members of the JV or the JV itself was the subcontractor for work performed.

SOO Page 6 / Section 4.5

Section 4.5 says that no new members may be added to an approved JV after contract award. Because changes in the second draft RFP were material to the evaluation criteria, may new members be added to approved JVs prior to proposal submission?

As the JVA submission deadline has passed, no new members may be added to the JV.

SOO Pg. 12 / Section 7

Database Components

Will the Government consider Greenplum experience for the

NoSQL requirement since it has its own Hadoop implementation?

Offerors are expected to provide any contract reference/experience, they feel best fits the descriptive data provided in the solicitation.

Small Business Enterprise Application Solutions (SBEAS)

2nd Draft Request for Proposal Questions and Answers (Q&As)

FA8771-17-R-1000

*This posting does not consititue a new window for questions related to the Draft RFP.

SOO Pg. 1 Section 1

The SOO states that, "this contract vehicle may be used by all other agencies that support an Air Force requirement."

Question: Only outside organizations (other than the AF) can use the SBEAS vehicle to support AF requirements?

All AF agencies and Federal agencies supporting AF requirements can use this vehicle. This is specifically to account for joint programs and instances where the AF organization with the requirement may be serviced by a non-AF contracting agency.

SOO Pg. 5 Section 4.1

Does the Government anticipate that a CI Poly or Full Scope Poly could be required at the TO level?

Over the next 10 years, it is possible a

TS/SCI-cleared requirement may materialize requiring a Full scope poly within an individual task order.

SOO Pg. 5 Section 4.4

The SOO states that, "In accordance with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, in performance of services awarded, at least 50% of the cost of task order performance incurred for personnel shall be expended by the SBEAS Prime

Contractor."

Question: Is the % work provided by the prime and subs tracked at the IDIQ level or the TO level?

Please refer to CDRL 002 that requires submission of LoS performance by task order and individual company performing on the task order to calculate IAW FAR

52.219-14

SOO Pg. 6 Section 4.5

The SOO states that, "In accordance with 13 CFR 121.404, recertifications shall be completed 120 days before the end of the base period and every year thereafter." It also states, "In accordance with 13 CFR 121.404 the following applies: Within

30 days of an approved contract novation, a contractor must recertify its small business size status to the procuring agency, or inform the procuring agency that it is other than small."

Question: If a company or JV has recertified within the 30 days of an approved contract novation, is the recertification still required 120 days before the end of the base period? And vice versa.

If a company transfers or a novation, is accomplished: within 30 days of an approved contract novation, a contractor must recertify its small business size status to the procuring agency, or inform the procuring agency that it is other than small.

If a contractor certifies that is other than small before award the firm is not eligible for a multiple award contract set-aside for small business. After award, if the contractor certifies that it is other than small, you must immediately revised all applicable Federal contract databases to reflect the new size status. There is nothing that eliminates the 120 day requirement. If the 30 days falls within the

120 day window then the requirement has been satisfied; if it does not, a recertification would be required.

SOO Pg. 4, Section 3.5.4 Does the offeror need to have a Government-approved Earned

Value Management (EVM) system?

"IAW FAR 34.201(a)--Earned Value

Management System, an earned value management system is required for major acquisitions for development, in accordance with OMB Circular A-11. The

Government may also require an EVMS for other acquisitions, in accordance with agency procedures." This is a requirement that would be determined at the task order level, not at the IDIQ contract level.

SOO Pg. 7, Section 4.8 This section states that “No profit, fee, General & Administrative

(G&A), or overhead will be paid [on Other Direct Costs

(ODCs)].” This is contrary to some offeror's standard practices that have been reviewed and approved by the Defense Contract

Mangement Agency (DCMA). Was this the Government's intent?

The observation has been taken under consideration.

SOO 2.0 Scope Due to the length of the Period of Performance and the rapid changes in technology that may be critical to supporting the agency’s mission, we suggest updating the Scope language as follows (additions in Blue) –

2. Scope

The scope of this IDIQ includes the comprehensive suite of IT services and IT solutions to support IT systems and software development in a variety of environments and infrastructures.

Additional IT services include, but are not limited to documentation, operations, deployment, cybersecurity, configuration management, training, commercial off-the-shelf

(COTS) product management and utilization, technology refresh, data and information services, information display services and business analysis for IT programs. The foundation of the Scope of this IDIQ is built on the most current Federal Enterprise

Architecture (FEA) and Department of Defense (DoD IEA)

Reference Models. By nature of the alignment to FEA and DoD

IEA, the Master IDIQ Contract includes any and all emerging

Information Technology components, IT Services, and Ancillary elements as they arise as required to successfully achieve the agency’s mission.

Thank you for your recommendation, however the scope of this effort will remain unchanged.

SOO 3/3.4.5 Please clarify this section ensures that there will not be any custom coding in this area.

This objective addresses the tools used for system design and development, not custom coding.

SOO

Pg. 4 Section 3.5, Pg. 8 Section 4.9

"The SBEAS Program conducts a maximum of one (1) mandatory

PMR per fiscal year held in a Government facility at a location that might require overnight travel."

"Travel requirements will be addressed at the task order level."

Will PMR travel be reimbursed?

If it is necessary, approved travel may be reimbursed.

SOO Pg. 10 Section 6

CDRL details are missing in the draft RFP for the following data deliverables:

3. CDRL A003: Vendor Capabilities Description: No Reference

4. CDRL A004: Mentor-Protégé Agreement (MPA): No

Reference

5. CDRL A005: Contractor Manpower Reporting: No Reference

6. CDRL A006: CMMI Appraisal Documentation: No Reference

Will those be provided in a draft RFP update?

"No reference" in this SOO paragraph refers to the lack of a standard Data Item

Description being available for these

CDRLs. Please refer to the DD1423-1 in attachment 9 for the details on what is required and the reporting format and frequency.

Section M SOO pg 2, 3.2.2

SOO Technical Objective 3.2.2 lists several FBAE business process areas, but states, "but not limited to." In the Past

Performance section, can an offeror include other FBAEs pervasive to doing business with the Federal Government, eg.

auditing or legal? If so, will these other FBAEs be considered of the two (2) needed to receive very relevant?

The "not limited to" statement allow offerors to provide information they feel is relevant in accordance with the evaluation criteria provided. The Government is not able to confirm the level of relevancy until the data is provided for evaluation.

SOO 3 / 3.3

Does the Government currently have cloud providers, and if so, who?

The gov't offers its own cloud service, milcloud. MilCloud is a cloud-services product portfolio, managed by the Defense

Information Systems Agency (DISA).

Additionally, commercial cloud provider services may also be obtained through NC-

2 NetOps vehicles.

SOO 4 / 1.2.2

"The font size shall be no less than Times New Roman ten (10) point". Does this mean that the Offeror can only use Times New

Roman font or can the Offeror use font that is of same size to

Times New Roman ten (10) point? "For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the font shall be no small than eight (8) point". No font is specified for tables, charts, graphs, and figures. What fonts are compliant for this proposal?

Can only use Times New Roman font for size 10 font. Can use any other font style for 8 font as long as it's legible.

SOO 5 / 4.1

Does the Government anticipate any classified task orders to come out? If so, what is the maximum anticipated classification level?

Classification levels of task orders will be determined by decentralized users across the AF over the ordering period.

References to assist in this area are DFARs

252.239-7001 INFORMATION

ASSURANCE CONTRACTOR

TRAINING AND CERTIFCATION and

AFMAN 17-1303 - CYBERSECURITY

WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM.

Section L 17 / 4.4.1 Section 4.4.1 states that "CPAR's submitted shall reflect the same company name the offerer is proposing under this solicitation."

We are writing to request that the Government include/adopt the provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause

15.305(a)(2)(iii) and associated, applicable Government

Accountability Office (GAO) decisions in its past performance evaluations for this solicitation. This language permits offerors to include relevant past performance of affiliated companies under certain conditions. We respectfully request that the Government exercise the authority given in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) regarding the use of parent, predecessor, affiliated or sister company past performance. We are a company whose operating structure between the entities includes internal organizational reporting lines and management chains for “lines of business” that operate across the formal corporate subsidiaries. We feel that this structure is advantageous to the Air Force and would like the government to evaluate our complete experience/past performance.

A predecessor company's past performance may be considered as long as (1) it succeeded the predecessor company; (2) the predecessor company actually performed the work for which the successor company is referencing. This is not the same for a sister or affilitated company.

Section L 32 Section 5.2.4.1

The Draft RFP requires the bidder to provide documentation which will "demonstrate the Offeror has access to or the ability to obtain, at minimum, $22M. At a minimum, one of the following documents shall be provided:

a. Letter of commitment from a financial institution

b. DCMA Report

c. Corporate Guaranty

d. Letter of commitment from stakeholders and/or investors"

Please:

1. Confirm that the amount of money to which the bidder needs access ($22M) is the intended figure. This seems very high for

Small Businesses.

2. Confirm that the owners of a closely-held business are considered " stakeholders and/or investors" for purposes of this requirement.

This section of the Instructions to Offerors will be removed. The PCO will assess contractor qualifications utilizing the methods specified IAW FAR 9.

Section L

Pg. 13 / Section L 3.3

Government Facility

Clearance Level (FCL)

In order to obtain a facility clearance a company must be sponsored via a DD254 on a Task Order requiring a facility clearance. Therefore, if the JV is formed for the purpose of

SBEAS, there is no way of obtaining a FCL in the name of the JV prior to an award. Will the government consider accepting credit for a Facility Clearance if all partners in a JV have the same level facility clearance?

No, the government will not accept a

Facility clearance for a JV that is not held by the JV.

Section L Pg. 18 / Section 5.2.3 Joint

Venture Agreements (JVAs)

When will the government notify offerors that a JV has been approved?

Upon completion of a review of all JVAs received.

Section L Pg. 5 Section 1.2.6

Single award BPA contracts often operate in the same manner as single award IDIQ contracts. The government currently allows for the combining of Task Order on an IDIQ contract. “Task orders issued against a single-award IDIQ can be combined and counted as one contract reference to address the criteria however, each task order number shall be identified.” Will the government extend this provision to include Call Orders on a Single Award

BPA? If not, will the government provide an explanation that justifies the differentiation?

The Government will take this into consideration.

Section L Page 8 of 20 Sub-Element 1e

The prior draft RFP only allowed for COTS ERP, the current draft allows for COTS/GOTS/FOSS. We didn't include a compay a JV because their experieince was with a GOTS ERP which wasn't allowed when the JVs had to be formed. Can we now add them to our JV?

The deadline for JVA submission has passed, the Government is not accepting any changes.

Section L Pg. 18/Section 5.2.3 Joint

Venture Agreements

"Joint Ventures (JVs) interested in proposing on this acquisition were required to submit a JVA to be approved by the PCO prior to submitting a proposal." The Government previously stated that

JVAs needed to be submitted prior to June 16. Does this section allow for the submission of JVA's for approval no later than submission of a proposal?

No. the JVA submission deadline has passed.

Section L

Page 2 of 20, Section L, 1.0

General Instructions to

Offerors

Please confirm that in the Submission of Electronic Proposal

Volumes, the precedence of submitted information does not apply to PPI Tool information due to only one version of submission, electronic copy, will be submitted.

Correct, PPI Tool information will only be submitted electronically therefore the precedence of submitted information does not apply to the PPI Tool information.

Section L

Page 4 of 20, Section L, 1.2

Organization/Number of

Copies/Page Limits;

Page 13 of 20, Section L, 4.2

Volume Organization

Please confirm that offerors will only submit a soft copy of the contents of the PPI Tool Database "…as a separate electronic copy ONLY…" and that the reference to information submitted in the PPI Tool being identical to the information submitted in hard copy and electronic copy is reference to the other related documentation.

Correct, PPI Tool information will only be submitted electronically.

Section L Pg. 2 Joint Venture Agreements

Section L states that, "Only Joint Ventures (JVs), including

Mentor Protégé JVs, whose JV agreement was previously approved by the SBEAS PCO are allowed to submit a proposal in response to this solicitation."

Question: Does the Government anticipate that all JV approvals

(or disapprovals) will be complete prior to the SBEAS RFP being released?

Yes.

Section L Pg. 5 Section 1.2.6

Section L states that, "A recent contract is defined as ongoing or completed work that is no more than three (3) years from the date of this solicitation.."

Question: Does that mean 3 years from the date of solicitation release or award?

"Three years from the date of the solicitation" means from the date of the

Final RFP release. Once awarded, an effort is no longer considered a solicitation.

Section L Pg. 13 Section 4.1

Section L states, ""For Offerors proposing as a JV whose JV agreement was approved, if contract references submitted are not those of the approved JV, then references submitted shall represent work performed by each individual member comprising the JV"

Question: Not sure of the intended implication here. Does this simply mean to explicitly identify which company for each reference?

Yes.

Section L Pg. 13 Section 4.2

Section L states that, "Past Performance Narratives (PPNs) shall be submitted in sequential order."

Question: What sequence does the Government prefer? The sequential order of contract award date? Contract completion date? Total contract amount? Alphabetical?

The government definition of sequential order is equivalent to numerical order. For example, PPN #1 is followed by PPN #2 and so forth as listed on your submitted

CRM.

Section L Pg. 17 Section 4.4.1

Section L states that, "CPARs submitted shall reflect the same company name the Offeror is proposing under for this solicitation."

Question: Does that mean that even if an individual company has a CPAR for the contract referenced in the PPN, but the JV doesn’t have that CPAR, then because the JV name is different than the individual company that CPAR is not acceptable?

If the contract references (CPARS) submitted are not those of the approved JV, then references (CPARS) submitted shall represent work performed by individual members comprising the JV.

Section L Pg. 3, Section 1.1 and Pg. 18, Section 5.2.3

Both sections state that JVs have to be approved by the SBEAS

PCO prior to proposal submission. What is the procedure and schedule for this submission? Is the approval based on the Draft

JVAs submitted on 16 June? When will offerors get the notice of approval?

Information was posted to FBO related to the JVA/JVAC approval process.

Section L Pg. 13, Section 4.3 States that "The pages allotted can be used at the Offerors' discretion." Is this in addition to the narrative required by the PPI

Tool?

No, this in not in addition to the narrative required by the PPI Tool, that statement applies the maximum 25 page narrative

(PPN).

Section L

18 / Section L /Paragraph

5.2.3

How many Joint Ventures were approved by the Air Force for

SBEAS?

The Government is not able to provide this information.

Draft RFP Pg 15/ 3.2.4.2

The Government has indicated in Table 3 (Past Performance

Quality Rating) that Quality will be assessed as either Acceptable or Unacceptable; however, the paragraph above lays out a different evaluation scale from Unsatisfactory to Exceptional.

Please clarify.

The Government will take a look to ensure this information is clear.

Section L page 6 / 3.1 General

For JV submissions, if technical experience contract references are submitted for JV members must every member of the JV provide at least one contract reference? The section language says

"references submitted shall represent work performed by each individual member comprising the JV". Does this language imply that every member of the JV must provide at least one reference?

In other words does "each JV member" also mean all JV members?

Yes, every member of the JV must provide at least one reference. Yes, "each JV member" also means all JV members.

Section L page 19/5.2.4.1 Financial ResourcesWhat is meant by a "corporate guaranty"?

Please utilize basic business practice definitions for the terms provided in the

JVA/JVAC criteria.

Section L Page 26, Paragraph 3.3

For a Joint Venture (JV), does the government require a letter signed by the FSO(s) from all partners of the JV or only from the

FSO of the Managing Partner?

No, the government will not accept individual company FCLs within an approved JV. The FCL must be in the name of the approved JV.

Section L

Page 13/20 of Section L (page

26 of the PDF), Section 3.3

Non-Technical Experience

Government Facility Clearance Level The SOO page 5, section

4.2 indicates that a FCL is not required at the IDIQ level, but it is being scored in the Self-Scoring worksheet. Is that correct?

The FCL is not required to receive an award; however, an offeror may obtain points for having an existing FCL.

Section L Pg. 4 Section 1.2.2

"Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches."

The page sizes in Attachment 4, CRM are larger. Can CRM pages on proposals be larger as well?

All appropriate documentation will be updated.

Section L Pg. 5 Section 1.2.6

"All contract references submitted for both Volume II and

Volume III shall be within the three (3) year window for recency.

A recent contract is defined as ongoing or completed work that is no more than three (3) years from the date of this solicitation."

If the solicitation is released after the anticipated date, references may fall outside what is considered recent. Would the government consider setting a hard date for recency?

No, it is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure the timeline for submitted reference are in accordance with the solicitation and that enough performance has occured that the Government will be able to verify quality.

Section L Pg. 19 Section 5.2.4.2

"Furthermore, IAW FAR 22.805(a)(4), Offerors shall provide the following documentation (if available):

lA Notice of Compliance from the Office of Federal Contract

Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and be listed in OFCCP’s

National Pre-award Registry via the Internet at https://ofccp.dol-esa.gov/preaward/pa_reg.html;

o The OFCCP registry is updated daily and only retains data for

24 months;

therefore Offerors shall ensure registry compliance remains valid through contract award."

In a JV, is this required for each partner or just the managing partner?

After consulting with the OFCCP representative, it depends on the Region conducting the assessment. Some regions ensure compliance for the JV and others may assess each company that makes up the JV.

Section L Pg. 19 Section 5.2.4.2

"Furthermore, IAW FAR 22.805(a)(4), Offerors shall provide the following documentation (if available):"

Are offerers required to register? How does it apply to newly formed JV? Please define "if available."

This is a requirement for qualified offerors that are expected to receive an award. If an offeror has previously been registered, it would save a step down the line if the information is already provided. If this information is not available, the

Government will request it from the EEOC office at the appropriate time.

Section L Sub-Element 1e: Life-cycle

Software Services, PDF page

The COTS solution we implemented has CRM, business process workflow management, payment/eCommerce components. Will

Government accept this experience as a valid past performance during the evaluation?

Offerors are expected to provide any contract reference/experience, they feel best fits the descriptive data provided in the solicitation.

Section L Pg 3 Section 1.2 Is the Proposal Organization Table counted in the page count?

The Proposal Organization Table is not part of the proposal.

Section L Pg 13 Section 4.2

Please clarify "shall be submitted in sequential order." Should

PPNs be ordered by contract recency or some other criteria?

The government definition of sequential order is equivalent to numerical order. For example, PPN #1 is followed by PPN #2 and so forth as listed on your submitted

CRM.

Section L Pg 7 Section 3.1.3

Must the offeror address all 10 technical elements or only those for which it is claiming points?

Offeror must address each technical element where the offeror is claiming points.

Section L Pg 19 Section 5.2.4

Are there specific artifacts or information that the bidder can provide to assist in showing responsibility?

The required information is specified in the

Contracts Documentation section of the solicitation.

Section L Page 17. Section 4.4.1 Why is the government not allowing CPAR's from members of a

Joint Venture entity? Rationale: The government has stated that the past performance of all Joint Venture entity members will be evaluated, why the CPAR exclusion?

The Government "is" allowing past performance from members of the JV.

Section L 6 / 3.1.1 / 1.2

The Technical Experience Volume (Volume II) is limited to 20 pages; the Technical Narrative, a part of the Technical

Experience Volume is limited to 20 pages. That doesn't leave any room for a Glossary. Is there a page count to the Glossary?

Glossaries are not included in page count.

Section L 5 / 1.2.5

What is meant by "All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors"?

If the material provided is unclassified, the color of the binders used shall not specify otherwise.

Section L Pg. 6 / Section 3.1 What is the minimum number of Contract References that a

Prime Contractor must submit?

There is no minimum number of Contract

References.

Section L Pg. 5, Section 1.2.6

Please clarify how an offeror should reference a Master Service

Agreement (MSA) contract for a single program that awards multiple task orders to incrementally fund related projects (i.e.

Project A, an end-to-end life-cycle service, is funded on Task

Order (TO) 1 for Discovery, TO3 for Design phase 1, TO4 for

Design phase 2, TO7 for Build and Test and TO10 for Implement and Maintain. Project B, a very related life-cycle service for the same Program as Project A, is funded on TO1, TO2, TO4, and

TO8)?

The Government will take this into consideration.

Section M 39 Section 4 Sub-Element 4a

Please clarify how the points are tallied. For instance, how many points are earned in each of the following scenarios: 1) Project a uses Java and Project b uses COBOL; 2) Project a uses Java and

COBOL; 3) Project a and Project b both use Java and COBOL

Points will be awarded based on the instructions and meeting the specific requirements for each section, we will not award extra points for exceeding the minimum.

The self-scoring worksheet provides details as to the amount of points an offeror may obtain for each element.

Section M 46 Section 3.2.4.1.1

Please confirm that the relevancy assessment for each subfactor is the aggregate of the bidder's experience (i.e., to be very relevant, the bidder has performed in 12 or more of the requirements for

Subfactor 1 across all 6 past performances, as opposed to in any one past performance).

Correct.

Section M Pg. 1 / General Comment

“Including but not limited to … “ Does this mean ”OR” or

“AND” when referencing experience? For example, as found on

Pg. 6 Sub-Element 5b "... Offeror has experience, to include but not limited to: Fortify, Sonatype, AppScan?" Does this mean that the offeror must have experience with all tools listed (Fortify, Sonatype, AppScan), but not limited only to them?

Offeror must have exerience in any of the specific products listed OR other comparable products that meet the requirement.

Section M Pg. 12 / Subfactor 1, Sub -

Element 1L

Section M Subfactor 1 Sub-element 1L references the SOO

3.1.15 which in turn includes both Software or Hardware

Technical Refresh. However, the Section M evaluation criteria only references Hardware Technical Refresh. Will the

Government consider adding Software Technical Refresh to the

Section M evaluation criteria to match the SOO?

No. Not everything in the SOO is being evaluated.

Section M

Pg. 6 Section 5, Sub-Element

5a

The task area requirement states that, "Offerors shall identify the tool with which they have experience to include, but not limited to: Fortify, Sonatype, AppScan."

Question: Is the list provided a sample of tools that can be referenced? Or does that mean that the offeror, at a minimum, has to have experience with the all specific tools (Fortify, Sonatype, and AppScan) listed, but can add other tools as well?

Yes, the list is a sample. Offeror can use other security tools as long as it meets the requirements.

Section M

Pg. 6 Section 5, Sub-Element

5b

The task area requirement states that, "Offerors shall identify the tool with which they have experience to include, but not limited to: Sonar, AppDynamic, CAST Code Analysis Tool."

Question: Is the list provided a sample of tools that can be referenced? Or does that mean that the offeror, at a minimum, has to have experience with all the specific tools (Sonar, AppDynamic, and CAST Code Analysis Tool) listed, but can add other tools as well? Or is the list provided a sample of tools that can be referenced?

Yes, the list is a sample. Offeror can use other quality tools as long as it meets the requirements.

Section M

Pg. 7 Section 5, Sub-Element

5c

The task area requirement states that, "Offerors shall identify the tool with which they have experience to include, but not limited to: HP Application Lifecycle Management, Selenium, Quick Test

Pro."

Question: Is the list provided a sample of tools that can be referenced? Or does that mean that the offeror, at a minimum, has to have experience with all the specific tools (HP Application

Lifecycle Management, Selenium, and Quick Test Pro) listed, but can add other tools as well? Or is the list provided a sample of tools that can be referenced?

Yes, the list is a sample. Offeror can use other testing tools as long as it meets the requirements.

Section M

Pg. 7 Section7, Sub-Element

7a

The task area requirement states that, "Offerors shall identify the tool with which they have experience to include, but not limited to: Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, SyBase, Postgresql, MarialDB, JasperSoft, MYSQL."

Question: Is the list provided a sample of tools that can be referenced? Or does that mean that the offeror, at a minimum, has to have experience with all the specific tools (Oracle, SQL

Server, DB2, SyBase, Postgresql, MarialDB, JasperSoft, and

MYSQL) listed, but can add other tools as well?

Yes, the list is a sample. Offeror can use other RDBMS database as long as it meets the requirements.

Section M

Pg. 7 Section7, Sub-Element

7b

The task area requirement states that, "Offerors shall identify the tool with which they have experience to include, but not limited to: Postgresql, Cassandra, MongoDB, Hadoop, Spark, CouchDB."

Question: Does that mean that the offeror, at a minimum, has to have experience with all the specific tools (Postgresql, Cassandra, MongoDB, Hadoop, Spark, and CouchDBL) listed, but can add other tools as well? Or is the list provided a sample of tools that can be referenced?

Yes, the list is a sample. Offeror can use other NoSQL databases as long as it meets the requirements.

Section M Pg. 1 Section 2.0

Section M states, "In accordance with 10 U.S.C. §2305(c), as amended by the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act

(NDAA), the Government will not evaluate price for the IDIQ contract."

Question: Does that mean no standard LCATS or LCAT rates

(Contractor site or Governement site) will be established for

SBEAS?

Correct

Section M Pg. 7 Section 5, Sub-Element 5d

Section M states that, "The Government will not accept points claimed by the offeror if the experience does not identify the specific Agile methodology used, to include but not limited to:

Extreme Programming (XP), Scrum, Crystal, Dynamic Systems

Development Method (DSDM), Lean Development, Feature-

Driven Development (FDD)."

Question: Is the list provided a sample of methodologies that can be referenced? Or does that mean that the offeror, at a minimum, has to have experience with all the specific methodologies

(Extreme Programming (XP), Scrum, Crystal, Dynamic Systems

Development Method (DSDM), Lean Development, and Feature-

Driven Development (FDD)) listed, but can add other methodologies as well?

Yes, this is a sample. Offeror can use other agile methodologies for experience.

Section M Pg. 8 Section 7, Sub-Element 7c

The task area requirement states that, "The Government will not accept points claimed by the offeror if the offeror does not identify use of one of the listed data store support services and the database with which they have experience to include but not limited to: Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, SyBase, Postgresql, MarialDB, JasperSoft, MYSQL, Postgresql, Cassandra, MongoDB, Hadoop, Spark, CouchDB."

Question: Is the list provided a sample of data store support services that can be referenced? Or does that mean that the offeror, at a minimum, has to have experience with all the specific data store support services (Extreme Programming (XP), Scrum, Crystal, Dynamic Systems Development Method

(DSDM), Lean Development, and Feature-Driven Development

(FDD)) listed, but can add other data store support services as well?

Yes, this is a sample.

Section M Pg. 12 Section 3.2.3, Sub-Element 1e

Section M states, "OR developing and implementing an IoT software-based solution to include, but not limited to: operating an AIT handheld terminal, collecting data from sensors, or using

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) (Active or Passive) to track and identify tags attached to equipment."

Question: Is the list provided a sample of IoT software-based solutions that can be referenced? Or does that mean if the offeror chooses to answer the IoT portion of this requirement, then, at a minimum, has to have experience with all the specific IoT software-based solutions (operating an AIT handheld terminal, collecting data from sensors, or using Radio Frequency

Identification (RFID) (Active or Passive)) to track and identify tags attached to equipment?

Yes, this is a sample.

Section M Page 2/16 of Section M (Page 35 of the PDF) Section 2.0 Basis for Contract Award

With all the assessment criteria being acceptable/unacceptable how will the governement rank eligible companies to pick the top

40 for award?

Please see Section M 'Evaluation Process'

Section M Pg. 4 Section Sub-Element 1b

"*The Government will accept points claimed by the offeror for a project which only includes re-creating or updating the IS’s documentation as re-engineering in the realm of life-cycle software services. "

Should read, "The Government will not accept..."?

No, the information is correct as written.

Section M Pg. 10 Section 3.2.1.2

"ANY PPN deemed as not recent will count as one of the six (6) total PPNs allowed."

Should this read "...as not recent will not count as one of the six

(6)..."?

No, statement is written as intended. If an offeror provides a PPN which is determined to be not relevant, the offeror does not get to "substitute" another reference as one of the allowable 6 references. The not relevant PPN still counts as 1 of the 6.

Section M Pg 14 Section 3.2.4.1.3

Would Security be considered a Functional Business Area

Expertise domain? Would Intel be considered a FBAE?

Offerors shall provide elements they feel fit the descriptive data provided in Section M.

Section M Pg 3 Section 3.1 and Section 3.1.3.1

In the evaluation criteria attachment, the government states that the points for qualification will come from the 10 technical elements of the self scoring worksheet. In section 3.1.3.1 concerning the award of points for government facility clearance level, the Government implies that points will be awarded for this non-technical experience. Do the points for having a facility clearance count toward the 4200 point requirement?

Yes, points for FCL will count towards the

4200.

Section M Pg 4 Section 3.1.3 Sub-element 1e

The Government's reponse to Question #19 of the

Draft_RFP_Industry_Day_Questions_Reponses.pdf was: "The verbiage as wriiten (sp) COTS SW/ERP is intended to be COTS

SW "or" COTS ERP, " however, the current language indicates a requirement that the product being deployed be an ERP software product that is COTS, GOTS, or FOSS. Was the intent to have

"ERP software product" listed as an example of complexity, as previously discussed; or was the intent to make ERP software deployment specifically a requirement?

Sub-element 1e is intended to make ERP software deployment the evaluation area.

Section M Pg 14 Section 3.2.4.1.3

There are three sub-factors for Factor 3 that are not currently considered when scoring relevancy: 3.2.1 (Data and Information

Services), 3.2.4 (Customer and user training) and 3.2.5 (Creating and updating system documentation). Was it the Government's intent to exclude these?

Yes, not every element of the SOO will be evaluated.

Section M Page 1 of 16/ Section 2.0/ Item 3

Each offeror must receive a Past Performance Confidence Rating of Satisfactory or higher in each Past Performance Sub-factor to be eligible for award if there are a number of offerors who proposals receive an equal past performance confidence rating to the 40th proposal chosen for award, those offerors will also receive an award. However, Section M, Section 3.2.4, Relevancy Assessment for all subfactors defines “Very Relevant, Relevant and Somewhat Relevant, Not Relevant” Assessment.

How does the “satisfactory rating” apply to these assessments?

The Relevancy Assessment rating along with the Quality Assessment rating are used to develop the overall confidence rating.

Section M Pages 15 and 16

In Section M, pages 15 and 16, the government does assign

“satisfactory” definitions for Quality and Confidence ratings.

Does the offeror need to achieve satisfactory levels for both quality and confidence to receive an award?

Reference Table 3, Acceptable quality includes Satisfactory. Since an

"Acceptable" quality rating is needed to obtain a Satisfatory or Substantial confidence rating, then yes a "Satisfactory" is needed for quality and confidence to receive an award.

Section M pg 14, 3.2.4.1.2 Relevancy Assessment of Sub-Factor 2

3.2.4.1.2 Relevancy Assessment of Sub-Factor 2 states: "The

offeror’s Past

Performance addressed all six (6) of the cybersecurity objectives and concepts listed therein." but seven (7) concepts/objectives are listed, 3.1.10.1 - 3.1.10.6 and 3.4.1. Please clarify.

All applicable documents will be updated to remove 3.4.1 from Subfactor 2

Cybersecurity.

Section M Page 4. Sub-Element 1b Is the the following statement in this section correct, “*The

Government will accept points claimed by the offeror for a project which includes only re-creating or updating the IS's documentation as re-engineering in the realm of life-cycle software services" or should this statement read, “*The

Government will not accept points claimed by the offeror for a project which includes only re-creating or updating the IS's documentation as re-engineering in the realm of life-cycle software services”?

Information is correct as written.

Section M Pg. 3/ Section 3.1.2 What is the minimum number of Technical Narratives that a

Prime Contractor must submit?

One. Unless the offeror is an approved JV then each JV member must be represented.There is no minimum number of PPNs required.

CRM Pgs. 3-5 Is each member of a JV expected to complete a cross-reference matrix? Or should one cross-reference matrix be completed for the JV including all offerors if the JV has no past performance?

One cross-reference matrix be completed for the JV The JV is the proposing offeror, therefore only the proposing offeror need submit a CRM.

CRM Pg. 1 / Step 2 / Row 8 What is the complete text that is missing or hidden in reference to

Row 8 under Step 2?

Step 2 reads as Step 2: Enter the Contract

Information:

In Row 3 Contract Number:

-Enter the contract number being used for each contract used in the Technical

Volume.

-If an offeror submits less than six (6) contract references in the technical volume, enter "NOT USED" in the remaining cells for Row 3.

In Row 4 Customer/Organization Name:

- Enter the Customer and Organization's name who can confirm the work performed for the contract.

In Row 5 Project Title:

- Provide a short but detailed descriptive narrative (in plain English) of the project that informs the reader of the project’s purpose and intent.

In Row 6 Period of Performance (PoP):

- Enter the PoP in the following format:

Day-Month-Year through Day-Month-Year

DD-MMM-YY through DD-MMM-YY. If the work is still in progress, the end of the

PoP may be replaced with "present". See the sample CRM.

In Row 7 Customer Phone Number:

- Enter the phone number, with area code, of the customer identified in row 4.

Pg 51

2) Please confirm that the numbers in each technical narrative column, for each element line, refers to the number of references list for the sub elements the technical narrative column.

This refers to the page number and section of the technical narrative for each sub element.

PPI Tool Pg. 4, Instruction Step 13

When enterng the contractor name, if a JV, the JV name should be entered. However, the contract number will be the contract number assigned to a member of the JV. Is this OK, or does any contract submitted in the PPI tool have to be from the JV?

It is acceptable for the contract number to be assigned to a member of the JV and not from the actual JV; however, the

Government must be able to verify that the contract reference ties back to a member of the JV or the JV itself.

PPI Tool

Section J Attachment 5, Past

Performance Information

(PPI) Tool Instructions

What Application is needed to open the PPI Tool? Our Office is using Office 2016, and we are unable to open the tool following the instructions provided in the Draft RFP.

Microsoft Access is the application needed to open the tool. Please refer to the instructions (attachment 5)

Section J

Attachment 5 Pg. 5 #15

The PPI Tool Instructions state that for the Contract Information

Tab that, "Contract Dollar Value:

o Original: Input “$1” o Current: Input “$1” o Explain the differences in Contract Value, if applicable: Enter

'N/A'"

Question: Why would we not input the actual contract value?

Why only $1?

Since contract size is not a factor for evaluation, the contract value is not needed. However, those fields are

"mandatory"; therefore the Government is requesting the arbitrary value of $1 be entered.

PPI Tool Pg 1-7 Will there be any character limits for PPI tool fields?

Yes, character limits vary for different fields. Character limit sheet will be added to RFP.

Section J Pg. 2-3 The program took me from Step 3 straight to Step 7. Please advise.

Please refer to "Editing Offeror and RFP

Number (if needed)" instructions under step 17 to proceed.

PPI Tool POC & Key Individuals/ Key

Individuals/

Is the Government looking for the Key Personnel identified under the past performance contract being referenced? Please explain

“instant acquisition”

Please refer to the instructions provided with the SBEAS solicitation (attachment

5). This data item is listed as "skip this section because it is not applicable to the

SBEAS solicitation."

PPI Tool Business Relationships

Is this section defining the company and its role on the team? If yes, is the place of work the HQ location since work could be performed worldwide? Is it also correct that the percentage of work is 100% if not in a JV? Please clarify how the

“Responsibilities:” section should be used if not in a joint venture.

Follow instructions (attachment 5) to popluate regardless if JV or not. The

Business Relations section is mandatory to proceed with entering data into the PPI tool. The SBEAS instructions (attachment

5) minimize the input required to ensure offeror's will not spend unnecessary time providing information SBEAS solicitation does not require.

PPI Tool Application Set up Should the term ‘subcontractor” be replaced with JV partner since no subcontractor past performance is relevant?

No. Please refer to the instructions

(attachment 5). The PPI Tool is not tailorable for this specific acquisition.

Instruction will be updated to specifically state "only select PRIME" for this question.

Definition of

Terms 5 / 47

"Tablets" are mentioned in the "Definition of Terms" but no where else in the RFP. Does the Government anticipate any tablet development as a part of a broader mobile development?

"Mobile development" in IOS, Android or

Windows may involve tablets.

CDRL A002 Pgs. 3-5 Following the CDRL A002_Limitations of Subcontracting table

(Page 2), there is a blank CDRL, folllowed by 2 pages that appear to be a Vendor brochure template. Are these pages associated with and a requirement of CDRL A002?

The government has reposted all draft

CDRLs to FBO.