Atch_10_-_AFINC_Vendor_Q_and_A_Final.pdf

FA8773‐12‐R‐8002, Amendment 0004

Q # Question Answer

1 Wanted to know if the term "offeror" (as expressed in the Relevancy Assessment section of the RFP) pertains to just the prime or the prime's team as a whole. XX is a XX-person company with little expertise in network operations, but our prospective team can cover all the bases so to speak. However, if my company's individual lack of past performance would hinder us (competitively speaking), perhaps we shouldn't prime in the first place.

The evaluation of an offeror's present / past performance evaluation include the evaluation of both prime and subcontractor / teaming partners per RFP Section L, E. Part II - Present/Past Performance Information and Section M-1, B., 5.

Factor 3 - Present / Past Performance. Additionally, please note all offerors must comply with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting for this effort.

We believe there will be instances where previously teamed companies will be competitors for the upcoming 26 NOS solicitation. If Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are required to be completed by primes for subcontractors, the subcontractors will be at a disadvantage since primes may not submit the PPQs to the government. We recommend that subcontractors be allowed to submit PPQs directly to the government or be allowed to have their Past Performance evaluated in the event a PPQ is not received from the Prime. Would the government consider this as a viable approach for subcontracted past performance?

The Government has considered your recommendation. However, an offeror's past performance is tied to its contractual relationship be that with the Government or a prime contractor. Therefore, it is the offeror's responsibility "to send out and track the receipt of submission of the Past Performance Questionnaires" IAW L-1, E. Part II Present/Past Performance, 6., a.

Additionally, past performance information is considered source selection sensitive and must be received directly from the evaluator IAW Section L, L-1, E. Part II Present/Past Performance Information, paragraph 6.b. "Once the PP Performance Questionnaires are completed by the POC, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the offeror." As for the offeror's request to have its past performance evaluated by the Government, all past performance submitted by the offeror will be evaluated by the Government.

Will the government provide the size standard and NAICs Code for the referenced solicitation?

The 38 CONS has re-evaluated the NAICS for the AFINC requirement and has revised solicitation to: NAICS: 541512, Size Standard $25,500,000.00. Please see RFP FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

Will the solicitation have a requirement for CMMI Level 3 or ISO 9000 standards?

CMMI Level 3 or ISO 9000 standards are not a requirement for the 26 NOS AFINC Support effort.

Is the release of the RFP still targeted for April 2014? RFP Release date, 17 March 2014

I’ve read through the solicitation and noticed that FAR clauses 52.234-2 (Notice of Earned Value Management System Pre- Award IBR), 52.234-3 (Notice of Earned Value Management System Post-Award IBR), 52.234-4 (Earned Value Management System) or, Subpart 34.2 (Earned Value Management System) were not mentioned. Is it safe to assume that an Earned Value Management System and ANSI/EAI Standard 748 are not requirements of this solicitation? We want to ensure that our proposal includes all of the necessary information that is needed to be selected. There is no requirement for Earn Value Management for FA8773-12-R-8002

Currently is in a Joint Venture (JV) arrangement with another small business and want to pursue this activity through that JV.

Both of the companies that make up the JV have a Top Secret Facility Clearance but as the JV is still in Source Selection for a major DoD contract supporting USSTRATCOM the JV itself has not been awarded a DD254. Does the fact that the managing members of the JV have a TS Facility Clearance meet the requirements of the below statement in the RFP?

Yes, if the managaing partner has a TS Facility Clearance the offeror will meet the AFINC security clearance requirements. RFP Section L-1, G., 1., Section K., b. has been revised for clarification. The following verbiage has been added "Additionally, if the JV does not possess its own TS facility clearance, it is permissible for the managing member of the JV to utilize its TS Facility Clearance to meet the requirement. Offeror must state in its proposal that all classified work or data will be performed in the designated JV partner’s TS facility."

Per FBO, interested parties must register for SOL FA8773-12R-8002. The request states, "A registration page for the solicitation will be available at the solicitation Web page. All offerors who wish to participate in this solicitation must complet the registration page, which places them on the solicitation source list." I am assisting a client with the proposal response and was unable to find the registration page/link. Is the request referring to the "Add Me to Interested Vendors" link at the bottom of the FBO page? Yes, this is referring to the "Interested Vendors" link

How can I keep up with things coming out of the 38th? Is there a link I can follow?

Please see Federal Business Opportunities at www.fbo.gov for additional information regarding the AFINC requirement FA8773-12-R-8002.

10 RFP page 72

52.219-28 POST-AWARD SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REREPRESENTATION (JULY 2013) (g) – RFP page 72 - The NAICS code that has been assigned to this solicitation is based on the old NAICS used under the previous NETCENTS acquisition. The 517110 NAICS is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, not computer and engineering related requirements like those in the AFINC RFP for this SDVOSB solicitation. The RFP and PWS requirements are overwhelmingl related to computer and network services for cybersecurity, not wired telecommunications carrier services. Market surveys for other similar small business set aside solicitations clearly show that there is more than sufficient competition in several other more closely related NAICS for Small Business set aside contracts.

Recommendation: Use a more closely aligned NAICS to the RFP requirements, such as 541330 - Engineering Services, 541519 - Other Computer Related Services, or 541512 - Computer Systems Design Services Reasoning: Market competition in more focused NAICS related to the PWS requirements allows for proper SDVOSB small business competition.

During market research multiple North American Industry Classification Standard (NAICS) were identified as compatible for the Air Force Intranet Control (AFINC) effort. After further review of the market research, the Government has determined that utilization of NAICS 541512 more closely matches the services required to support the AFINC effort. Therefore, the Government has determined it is in the acquisition’s best interest to revise the NAICS to 541512, Computer System Design Services, from NAICS 517110, Wired Telecommunications Carriers.

11 RFP Attachment 1

The evaluation criteria for past experience relevancy in Atch 1 requires that there be very, very specific vendor products experience in certain areas that are needed to be relevant or somewhat relevant. And many areas of the PWS are not covered at all in the criteria. As but one example, the PWS specifies three very specific sets of vendor products and proprietary solutions for being relevant in Network Security and DNS Operations area:

B. Experience with Cisco, Blue Coat, Palo Alto, and Sourcefire devices.

E. Experience using Infoblox products.

G. Experience using McAfee Email Gateway application.

There are many, many types of these network security tools, products, capabilities very, very similar to these technologies used elsewhere on Air Force and DoD networks that should be considered in order to be considered relevant.

Recommendation: Use less specific technology references to proprietary products.

Reasoning: Many tools and technologies are used within the Air Force and DOD cybersecurity domain. Having past experience in a wider selection of tools provides far more flexible capabilities for the government to select from. In a very fast changing cybersecurity environment, this flexibility will provide far more robust, and less expensive, cyber solutions in the best interests of the government for this contract period of performance.

The Government understands there are similar technologies; however, the AFINC weapon system currently uses the products specified. The offeror should have experience with these products as a minimum.

12 RFP Attachment 1

The relevancy evaluation criteria in Atch 1 for past performance relevancy provides for only four PWS areas, but not for many others:

1) It does not provide evaluation criteria for Net Analysis & Troubleshooting PWS areas: Enterprise Analysis, Project Integration, and Enterprise Tools. 2) It does not provide evaluation criteria for critical PWS areas: QA Evals, Training, Infrastructure, Change Management, Records /Knowledge Management.

Recommendation: Add this criteria to the past performance relevancy evaluation. Reasoning: This would provide a much more balanced approach to evaluating the past performance relevancy, and not evaluate relevancy based only on specific vendor products, selected tools, and proprietary solutions.

The Government notes your concern. The Government has decided to focus on the specific areas included in the relevancy matrix for purposes of the Past Performance evaluation . Please see M-1, B., 5., c. Relevancy Assessment for additional information. Additionally, the Government has revised the PWS to remove QA Evals, Training, and Records / Knowledge Management. See RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

Vendor Questions and Answers (Q&A)

13 RFP Attachment 2 It appears there is a formula error on the price sheet on line 26 for the termination fee. It calculates 10X/11X the funding for the termination fee when typically that is two weeks. Recommendation: Change formula.

Termination fee for this requirement is calculated on a monthly basis. The Termination Fee CLIN for the Base Period is 10 months and the Option Periods is 11 months.

Table 2- Binder Organization, Requirement states to provide a cross-reference matrix at the beginning of Part 1 – Technical Volume. This matrix appears to not be excluded from the page count. Request that CR matrix be excluded from the page count allocated for the technical volume. Recommendation: Exclude matrix from page count. The page limitations established in L-1, C.2. remains unchanged.

SF-33 Block, Page 1, Proposal Due Date - Concern: Per 2) above, the past performance relevancy is complex and quite explicit. Request a two week extension to proposal due date to allow additional time for respondents to 1) Identify past performance citations, and 2) coordinate the preparation and submission of PP Questionnaires. Reasoning: Extension request justified as PP requirements are extensive and quite explicit in terms of technologies/product sets supported. Recommendation: Extend due date by two weeks.

The Government notes your concern and has extended the RFP See RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0002.

The previous contract effort supporting this customer was solicited under NAICS code, 541512 – Computer Systems Design Services, what has significantly changed in the statement of work that drove the Government to solicit this effort under the NAICS code, 517110 – Wired Telecommunications Carries? Will the Government consider changing the NAICS Code back to 541512?

During market research multiple North American Industry Classification Standard (NAICS) were identified as compatible for the Air Force Intranet Control (AFINC) effort. After further review of the market research, the Government has determined that utilization of NAICS 541512 more closely matches the services required to support the AFINC effort. Therefore, the Government has determined it is in the acquisition’s best interest to revise the NAICS to 541512, Computer System Design Services, from NAICS 517110, Wired Telecommunications Carriers.

17 If the government is ranking proposals strictly based on price initially do they plan on eliminating those below the “price reasonable” level before ranking? Section L of the RFP F. Part III Price Proposal references Price Reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. Are these proposals removed before determining the lowest seven pricing volumes?

No, these proposals are not removed. For the purpose of efficiency, if any proposals fail the Government will not evaluate more than the 7 proposals with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government does not intend to add any more proposals to the pool. Please reference RFP FA8773-12-R- 8002, Section M-1 B.1. b.

Is there an existing remote management solution?

Yes. Much of the 26 NOS mission utilizes an existing out of band remote management solution.

19 PWS 2.1

What kind of automated reporting is expected to offset lack of oversight?

This is a non-personal services contract and the contractor is expected to oversee their employees. The Government will monitor contractor performance through the assigned Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). Please see PWS paragraph 2.2. for additional information.

20 Per PWS 2.2.2 What artifacts, metrics, processes, and architectural artifacts are available to facilitate minimal duplication of effort?

At the 26 NOS all issues, incidents, and solutions are stored in the Remedy system. Additionally, the 26 NOS has checklists, job guides, share drives, and other policies listed in PWS Appendix A.

Is the government’s expectation to record preventative and corrective maintenance in a standard system or solution, such as Remedy?

Yes, the 26 NOS utilizes a Remedy system to record preventative and corrective maintenance.

22 Per PWS 3.1.1.2d Are there performance allowances in the standard to account for faulty hardware that become “bricked” during a firmware upgrade due to hardware failure?

Yes, there is an allowance for an "80% success rate with Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) submitted within three (3) days of deployment for remediation of remaining 20%". Please see the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) located PWS 3.1.1.2 d. for allowance for that standard.

Does the government have a ”preferred” solution for analyzing evaluating and reporting device performance, traffic, and network utilization?

Yes, the Government has various solutions for analyzing, evaluating and reporting device performance, traffic and network utilization. The government will look at other solutions that improve efficiencies and are IAW PMO guidance. See PWS Appendix B for the current 26 NOS tools.

What is the current size and percentage allocated of the 26th NOS storage environment and where is it located?

26 NOS storage environment is managed both remotely and physically at the primary and alternate locations. Exact locations will be available to the awardee after contract award.

Legacy Environment Current Size: 748 TB Legacy Environment Allocation Size: 418 TB (56%) SIPR Environment Current Size: 59 TB SIPR Environment Allocation Size: 46 TB (78%) IMS Environment Current Size: 209 TB IMS Environment Allocation Size: 152 TB (73%) Gateway Environment Current Size: 741 TB Gateway Environment Allocation Size: 490 TB (66%)

What type of backup and recovery system is currently in place?

The back-up and recovery systems information is available in Attachment 3 - PWS appendices.

What type of DNS are they currently using?

The current DNS type is available in Attachment 3 - PWS appendices.

What tools are currently being used?

The tools currently utilized by the 26 NOS are available in Attachment 3 - PWS appendices.

Is the government interested in open source technology?

For the purposes of offeror's proposals, open source technology is not a requirement. However, the Government is looking for industry to "utilize[e] industry best practices, innovative solutions, emerging technologies, and lessons learned to improve processes, procedures and performance of DODIN." Please see PWS Section 3.0.

Is there consideration to extend the solicitation due date to ensure adequate proposal development and vendor competition?

The restricted timeline associated with this solicitation, e.g., the timing of the pre-bid conference, the library availability window, and the timing for the Gov’t to reply to vendor questions severely restricts competition and places undue burden on potential offerors.

The Government notes your concern and has extended the RFP See RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0002.

Section 52.217-8 provides that “The Contracting Officer may exercise the option [to extend] by written notice to the Contractor within 30 Days.” Furthermore, Section 52.217-9 states “The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 30 Days provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 days before the contract expires.” However, the Government states in Section 52.217- 9 that the preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension. Is it the Government’s intent for the offeror to accept execution risk since the Government is allowed to provide written notice within 30 days of its intent to extend services, which by explanation in Section 52.217-9 is a preliminary notice that does not commit the Government?

The Government's Option to Extend Services, IAW FAR 52.217-8, is contingent upon the availability of funds.

Section 52.217.9(c) provides that the total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 60 months; however, the total timeframe of the periods of performance, to include the option period as provided in the RFP is 66.77 months, i.e., 2003 total days divided by 30. What is the correct maximum duration of this contract?

The duration of the contract under FAR Clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, is 60 months. The Option to Extend Services, IAW FAR 52.217-8, is separate and shall not exceed six months.

32 Can the Government provide the total (or estimated) number or training events and exercises under Section 252.237-7023(3) envisioned that the Contractor would support?

Please see revised Attachment-8 Historical Workload Estimate for information pertaining to exercises and training events included with RFP Amendment

FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

Will the government provide organizational charts for Montgomery, Alabama and the Alternate Location?

No, the Government does not intend to provide organizational charts for the primary and alternate locations. The required contractor support identified in the PWS is for specific functional areas and the Government has determined that the 26 NOS organizational chart is not required for proposal submission.

However, upon award the awardee will have access to specific organizational details.

Reference: G.

PART IV –

CONTRACT

DOCUMENT

SECTION, 1.,

Section K –

a. Question: If offeror has an active SAM registration, which representations and certifications from the solicitation need to be included in PART IV?

IAW G. PART IV – CONTRACT DOCUMENT SECTION, 1., Section K, a. - "Completed SAM representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements shall be included with submission. "

35 M-Page 109 Under Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach subsection “a.” the government explicitly states “Note: Do not submit employee names or resumes.” If a vendor does mention an employee’s name or provides information similar to that would be found in a resume within any volume of the proposal, will the Offeror’s proposal be deemed “Non-compliant” and not considered for award?

An offeror will not be considered noncompliant if it submits employee names.

However, the Government requests offeror's not include employee names as it is not needed and consumes value space where an offeror could provide relevant information pertaining to its staffing approach. IAW M-1 B. 4. Subfactor 2, please do not include individual names.

36 L-Page 100

Sub-section 8(h) states “Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant acquisition. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions.” This appears to be in conflict with the directions set forth on page 109 under Subfactor 2. Since this is not a personal services contract, request that Section 8(h) be deleted to ensure consistency throughout the solicitation regarding providing names or resume like information on any individual that will be directly supporting this contract. If there is a key position(s) (i.e., Program Leader, Technical Leader, Site Lead, etc..) the government would like the Offeror to provide a name and short bio for, please identify the specific position(s).

The Government has considered the offeror's request. However, because the technical and past performance evaluations will be conducted separately the Government has determined that this is not a conflict and will not delete L-1, E., 8., h from the past performance section. The information requested is only applicable to past performance information because key individuals to support this instant acquisition may carry relevant past performance not tied prime and subcontractors.

37 M-Page 110

Will the Government evaluate the SDVOSB prime’s breadth of experience and past performance as more significant across th solicitation requirements as opposed to the team as a whole?

FAR 52.219-14 Limitations On Subcontracting clause applies. M-1, B. 5. c., "A relevancy determination will be made on the offeror’s present/past performance, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s) performing more than 10% of the effort. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. "

38 A-Page 10 Is OCONUS travel expected to include hostile and austere environments?

No, the contractor will not be expected to travel abraod to hostile and austere environments.

39 Since this is an SDVOSB set-aside, will the government use the VA’s VIP database to “verify” the Offeror has been assessed and approved by the VA?

No, the Government will not utilize the VA's VIP database. Offeror's are responsible for "self-certifying" that it is a service disabled veteran owned small business concern through the System for Award Management (SAM).

40 L-1.C.4, page 96 states “the offeror shall provide a cross-reference matrix at the beginning of Part 1-technical volume indicating the PWS paragraph number and the corresponding proposal paragraph number.” The only time that the PWS is mentioned in the proposal instructions is in L-1.D.3, Subfactor 1 Program Management Approach and Subfactor 2 Staffing Approach. Since we are not tasked to write a technical approach to each area of the PWS, this cross-referencing requirement seems inconsistent with the Government’s section L instructions and Section M evaluation criteria. Please review and provide further direction on the content of this cross-reference matrix.

The Government has reviewed your concern. After review, the Government still requests offerors provide a cross reference matrix that addresses the applicable technical evaluation criteria. The cross reference matrix identified in L-1, C., 4 applies to the entire Part 1 - technical volume. Additionally, the PWS is referenced in all subfactors, please see M-1, B. 4. Factor 2 - Technical.

41 L-1.D.2, page 9 states “the prime shall clearly identify work to be performed by each specific sub-contractor within the appropriate Factors/Subfactors in the prime’s proposal.” Given that no staffing data is required for the scenarios, we assume that this information is not required in each of the five scenarios (Factor 2, Subfactors 3 and 4). Is this a correct assumption? Yes, this is a correct assumption.

M-1.B.4, Factor 2, Subfactor 1, page 108 Is the Continuation of Mission Essential Services Plan included in the 65-page limit?

No, the Continuation of Mission Essential Services Plan is not included in the 65-page limit. See RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004

43 CDRL A011.

This CDRL states that the Mission Essential Services Plan is to be provided at contract award; however, Section M-1.B.4, Factor 2, Subfactor 1 indicates that this plan will be evaluated as part of the proposal submission. Would the Government please clarify this requirement.

Yes, a final Continuation of Mission Essential Services Plan (new CDRL # A034) is due to the Government after award. Additionally, the offeror shall provide its Continuation of Mission Essential Services Plan as part of its Subfactor 1 - Program Management Approach

M-1.B.4, Factor 2, Subfactor 2, page 109. Is the Transition Plan included in the 65-page limit?

No, the Transition Plan is not included in the 65-page limit. See RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004

M-1.B.4, Factor 2, Subfactor 2, page 109. Are the position descriptions included in the 65-page limit? Yes, the position descriptions are included in the 65 page limit, see L-1, C. 2.

M-1.B.4, Factor 2, Subfactor 2, page 109.

Are the proposed shift hours to be specified by each unique position on the contract (e.g., Program Manager works 1st shift at the primary site which is 7 a.m. CT to 4 p.m. CT) or simply by the work centers at the two locations?

Shift hours are not specified by each unique position. Offeror's shall provide proposed work center shift hours IAW Section M-1, B., 4. Subfactor 2.

Reference the list of “work centers” in L-1.D, Part 1 – Technical Proposal. 3. Subfactor 2 – Staffing Approach AND M-1.B.4, Factor 2 – Technical. Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach. The lists in L and M do not correlate with the Labor CLINs which the offeror is to price (see Table below). It would seem that there should be a direct correlation between the staffing described here and the pricing provided in the price volume. Would the Government please review and provide clarification as to rationale and significance of the differences.

First, the Government has revised the PWS and removed Information Assurance, Training, Quality Assurance, and Records / Knowledge Management therefore there is no longer a conflict between the staffing approach and the pricing table in these areas. Please see RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004. Second, the Government has reviewed your question and has determined that calling out VoIP (PWS 3.4.2.2) individually is unnecessary as it is covered under Project Integration (PWS 3.4.2). This change is reflected in the above RFP amendment. As for COOP (PWS 2.8), it is a General Requirement for the contractor and includes the functional areas specified in Section 3.0 of the PWS. Therefore, the pricing for this support should be reflected in the applicable CLINs for functional areas required to support COOP operations.

48 Reference Attachment 1, Relevancy Matrix, and Section M-1.B.5.c. Must the contracts submitted be “relevant” in all four functional areas [(1) Router Operations; (2) Network Security and DNS Operations; (3) Analysis: Network Traffic and Bandwidth, Data, and Root Cause; and (4) System Administration] in order to be judged “relevant.” For example, how would a contract this is “relevant” in Router Operations and System Administration but not meet the minimum standard for relevancy in Network Security and DNS Operations and Analysis: Network Traffic and Bandwidth, Data, and Root Cause be assessed by the Government.

No, the PPI submitted does not have to be relevant in all four functional areas.

Based on the vendor's scenario, the individual PPI reference will be evaluated as Relevant for Router Operations and System Administration; and Not Relevant in Network Security and DNS Operations and Analysis: Network Traffic and Bandwidth, Data, and Root Cause. The Government will evaluate PP references individually for relevancy in each functional area IAW M-1, B., 5., c.

2. However, the performance confidence is an integrated assessment of relevancy, recency and confidence. Please see M-1, B., 5. e., i. for information pertaining to Performance Confidence Assessment.

Reference Attachment 1, Relevancy Matrix, and Section M-1.B.5.c. Is there any difference on how past performance relevancy for contracts submitted by the prime offeror will be judged versus the contracts submitted by proposed subcontractors/teammates? For example, if a subcontractor is proposed to provide support in only system administration and router operations and their past performance citations only address those two areas, will these contracts be judged as relevant (assuming they meet the requirements established for system administration and router operation relevancy)?

No, there is no difference in how the PPI will be judged as long as the PPI is relevant to the portion of the effort the prime or subcontractor is proposing to perform. Please see revised RFP FA8773-12-R-8002-0004, Section M-1, B., 5., c for additional information.

Reference Section L Clauses Incorporated by Full Text, 52.215-and Section L-1 A.3. (a) Please clarify whether adequate price competition is anticipated or whether it is the intent of the Government for offerors to submit cost or pricing data/information other than cost or pricing data with initial offers. (b) If so, is it the Government’s intent for contractors to provide this “back-up” using their own cost templates (i.e., table 15-2 cost data, base labor, indirects, etc.) to support the solicitation provided Atch_2_Pricing_Table?

IAW L-1, Section A, paragraph 3, "if in the CO's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required." The Government reserves the right to request Other than Cost and Pricing data in the event the CO determines adequate price competition does not occur.

51 Section L-1.F

(a) Please clarify whether subcontractors are required to submit cost detail to the Government. (b) If subcontractors are to submit cost detail, please provide directions relative to subcontractor sealed packages.

Subcontractors are not required to submit price detail to the Governemnt.

However, if an Offeror deems the pricing details "essential to document or support offeror's price position" they can submit additional information beyond what is requested IAW Section L-1, F., 2.

52 Section L-1.F

Please clarify how prime offerors should provide subcontractor cost detail information within the constraints of the solicitation provided cost template.

Additional cost details beyond the information requested are not necessary unless an offeror deems the price details are "essential to document or support offeror's price position" IAW Section L-1, F., 2. If deemed necessary, a subcontractor may submit its detailed information directly to the Government

Attachment 2 Pricing Table

Cell AE24 indicates that the price for ODCs in the 6-month extension is $25,000; however, CLIN 5017 indicates it is $50,000 Please review and clarify which is the correct amount.

The Government has reviewed RFP CLIN 5017 and Attachment 2 - Pricing Table. CLIN 5017 should read $25,000.00. The Government has revised RFP CLIN 5017 to reflect this change. Also, please note this CLIN has been revised to reflect changes to the requirement. The revised CLIN for ODC's is now 5013.

Attachment 2 Pricing Table.

The formula in Row 25 appears to be totaling Rows 12 through 24 rather than rows 22 through 24. As a result labor is “double counted” and in some cases “triple counted” in the Total Per Period row (Row 27). Should the offeror correct this error or will the Government be providing a corrected Attachment 2?

The Government has reviewed your question and has corrected the formula error. Please see RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004

55 Attachment 8 Historical Workload Data, Support of 561 NOS or 81 NOS Contingency. Are there other functions or organizations the 26 NOS provides surge or backup/contingency support for that are not already identified in the provided documentation (e.g. - 33

NWS)?

See PWS 2.6.1.4 for Surge information. The information provided RFP Attachment 8 is for scoping purposes only and provides examples of past events.

56 PWS Section 1.1. (a) What are the operational and management requirements for the Department of Defense Joint Regional Security Stack (JRSS)? (b) What is the AF’s current role in maintaining JRSS? (c) What is the timeframe for JRSS implementation? (d) Please define the number of "newly established DISA circuits" that will need to be managed?

It is anticipated that JRSS implementation will be underway by contract start.

The contractor's responsibility for the operation and management of the AF portion of the DoD Information Network (DODIN) will remain the same. The JRSS requirement is still in the planning stages and additional information is not available at this time.

PWS Section

1.2.2 The PWS states: “The growth in scope and responsibility has far outpaced the growth of manpower to support them. The scope has now grown to include the Joint Information Environment (JIE).” (a) What are the scope and requirements of Joint Information Environment (JIE)? (b) Please define the future role for the 26 NOS in the Joint Information Environment?

The Government has reviewed the PWS and the two sentences in question have been deleted. Please see revised Attachment 3 PWS, RFP Amendment FA8773- 12-R-8002-0004.

58 PWS 1.2.2.

(a) Where are the geographically separate IMS locations and are they remotely administered or are people onsite? (b) How is touch maintenance for these suites achieved if they are remote?

a) The 26 NOS work locations are located in PWS paragraph 2.6.1., additionally the 26 NOS utilizes remote and onsite management. b) Touch maintenance is described in the local job guides, a list of local job guides is available in PWS Appendix A.

59 PWS 1.2.3.

Please provide details of the surge capacity required, how often the capability is exercised, or expected to be exercised, as well as which teams and skill sets are expected to surge.

Please see RFP Attachment 8 for previous Surge examples, these are provided for scoping purposes only and includes only samples of past events.

60 PWS 2.2.12.

This paragraph seems to imply that the contractor is creating policy. It is our general understanding that the contractor can draft, provide input, edit and review policy, but not create. Please confirm this and modify PWS language as appropriate.

No the contractor will not be creating policy. The Government has reviewed the offeror's question and PWS 2.2.12 has been revised to read as follows "The contractor shall maintain, update, and draft 26 NOS technical documentation, policies, and procedures for ensuring continuity of knowledge and operations."

The Government will be responsible for creating and establishing policy. See RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004 for revised PWS.

61 PWS 2.2.14.

Can the Government elaborate or provide some examples of the equipment that requires "aligning, corrosion control"?

All equipment at the 26 NOS requires following Technical Order (TO) 00-33A- 1001 part of which is "aligning, corrosion control." A list of current equipment is available in Attachment 3 - PWS Appendix C.

PWS Section

2.3.3.

Is there a requirement that a contractor management representative be located on site?

In order to avoid personal services, the contractor must provide a single point of contract on site to enable coordination with the COR. IAW PWS 2.3.1 "The contractor shall establish clear organizational lines of authority and responsibility to ensure effective management of the resources assigned to the requirement." The contractor must determine what level of representative this effort requires. Please see PWS Section 2.3 for additional information.

63 PWS 2.3.3.4

Please define what you consider to be “necessary infrastructure to support contract tasks”

The contractor is expected to be capable of performing all tasks identified in the

PWS.

64 PWS 2.4.

The PWS states that the contractor “may add subcontractors to their team after notification to the CO or COR. Cross teaming will not be permitted.” What does “Cross teaming will not be permitted” mean in this post-award situation?

Cross-teaming generally entails one company participating on multiple teams in competing for a contract or task order under a multiple award contract. After review, this is not applicable in a single award environment and has been removed from PWS. See revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP Amendment

FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

PWS 2.6.1.1 and

2.6.1.2 Can the Government provide historical data on overtime incurred by the current prime contractor by contract year?

No, historical overtime data is not available. The Government does not track this data. The current contract is Firm Fixed Price and overtime is not paid by the Government.

66 PWS 2.6.1.2.

How often is the failover to Lackland exercised?

The failover to the Lackland AOL is exercised quarterly at a minimum. See revised Attachment 8 - Historical Workload Estimates issued with RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004 for additional information.

67 PWS 2.6.1.4

(a) Is the cost for surge hours negotiated by an Engineering Change Proposal or are they to be added to our firm fixed price for each CLIN? (b) If surge hours are to be estimated and priced into the FFP CLINs, can the Government provide historical data on the number of surge hours by labor category that the current prime contractor has delivered by contract year?

Surge capability is not a separate requirement or CLIN. Pricing considerations for the surge requirement should be included in the Offeror's proposed Firm Fixed Price (FFP). The Government does not track "Surge" events by labor category and cannot provide this data. However, the Government has revised Attachment 8 and added additional historical workload data. Please see revised Attachment 8 - Historical Workload Data issued with RFP Amendment FA8773 12-R-8002-0004.

68 PWS 2.8.1.

In the event the COOP plan is activated, (a) how much time will the contractor be allowed to have personnel in place for 100% coverage of COOP operations? (b) How long should COOP personnel plan on working from the alternate location?

See revised RFP FA8773-12-R-8002-0004, Attachment 3 - PWS paragraph

2.8.1 "In the event the COOP plan is activated the contractor shall transition from day to day AOL operations and provide 100% coverage within 24 hours."

Historically COOP activation has lasted at least four days. See revised Attachment 8 - Historical Workload Data issued with RFP Amendment FA8773 12-R-8002-0004.

69 PWS 2.8.5.

Are there specific 26 NOS personnel designated to arrive at the AOL, or is it up to the contractor to determine what is necessary?

The contractor determines what is necessary after coordination with the Government. See revised RFP FA8773-12-R-8002-0004, Attachment 3 - PWS paragraph 2.8.5 "The contractor shall coordinate with the Government to determine the required COOP support. Additionally, the contractor will determine which of its personnel are required to deploy to the AOL in support of operations."

70 PWS 2.8.5.

The COOP site requires all contractors to have an active top secret clearance. Most of the staff in Montgomery is required to have only a secret clearance. In the case of an emergency where personnel from the primary location are sent to the alternate operating location, how will the Government handle access since the preponderance of those working at the primary location hold only a secret clearance?

Access to the AOL will be granted only to contractor personnel possessing a Top Secret security clearance. Therefore, all contractor employees providing COOP support are required to possess a Top Secret security clearance. The contractor will determine which personnel will deploy in support COOP operations and ensure they have the required security clearances IAW PWS paragraph 4.1.2.

71 PWS 2.8.6.

The PWS states “The contractor shall support COOP documentation revision efforts.” How frequent and extensive are these revisions and will there be training provided prior to beginning the task?

Revisions are typically required in response to lessons learned from COOP events and exercises which happen at least quarterly. No training is required.

See revised Attachment 8 - Historical Workload Data in RFP amendment

FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

72 PWS 2.9

Can the Government provide any details on exercises or events that occur on a regular basis?

The 26 NOS participates in various exercises and events throughout the year.

The Government has provided the available historical data in the revised Attachment 8 - Historical Workload Data in RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R- 8002-0004.

73 PWS 3

Can the Government provide historical performance levels as a reference point for bidding vendors and gain insight to the current state of the environment?

The Government has revised the historical workload data in Attachment 8 - Historical Workload Data to provide insight into the current state of the 26 NOS. This includes historical trouble ticket data on criticality and complexity.

Please see revised Attachment 8 - Historical Workload Data in RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

74 PWS 3.1.1.1.

The PWS states Router Operations Tasks requires certification as a Cisco Certified Network Associate (CCNA) or Cisco Certified Network Professional (CCNP) (CCNP or greater preferred). (a) Does this mean that a minimum of one person supporting the Router Operations Task must have either a CCNA or CCNP IAW paragraph 2.5.7 – “The contractor shall ensure the certifications are spread out among the team and not exclusive to one person”, or is this certification required of everybody assigned to the Router Operations Task? (b) Are there minimum certification requirements for every person supporting the Router Operations Task?

Yes, every member of the router team must have at a minimum a CCNA or CCNP. Additionally, yes all contractor employees supporting router operations must have the required DoD 8570 certifications IAW PWS paragraph 2.5.5.

75 PWS 3.1.1.3.

(a) What is the current state of circuit utilization? (b) Are there any current problems with circuit over-utilization?

Circuit utilization is within the performance standards identified in PWS paragraph 3.1.1.3. Currently the Government is not experiencing any problems.

PWS 3.1.1.1,

3.1.2.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.4.1.1, 3.4.2.1, 3.4.2.2, and 3.4.3.1.

(a) Are there any minimum certification requirements for every person supporting each of these PWSs? (b) If so, please provide minimum certification requirements for every person by PWS.

Yes, there are minimum certifications requirements for every person supporting the PWS tasks. Please reference PWS section 2.5 for general certification requirements and each individual functional areas in PWS Section 3.0 for certification requirements.

77 PWS 3.1.2.2 For the primary location will expert level support be required on site at all times or can the expert level support be on-call during the evenings and on weekend shifts?

The availability of expert level support varies by functional area. Contractor is responsible for determining its own manning requirements to meet the tasks identified in the PWS.

78 PWS 3.1.2.2(a) Since this is a STD, can the Government please define "timely manner"?

In response to your question the Government has reviewed the PWS and revised the performance standards in PWS paragraph 3.1.2.2. Please see the revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

79 PWS 3.1.2.2(b) Since this is a STD, can the Government please define what constitutes "early"?

In response to your question the Government has reviewed the PWS and revised the performance standards in PWS paragraph 3.1.2.2. Please see the revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

80 PWS 3.1.2.2(d) Since this is a STD, can the Government please define what constitutes "substantive"?

In response to your question the Government has reviewed the PWS and revised the performance standards in PWS paragraph 3.1.2.2. Please see the revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

81 PWS 3.1.2.5

(a) Is the storage environment currently available 99.99% monthly? (b) Is the storage usage currently less than or equal to 90%?

Yes, the storage environment is currently available 99.99% monthly and the storage usage is currently less than or equal to 90%.

82 PWS 3.1.2.6.

Are offsite storage locations in the local vicinity of the site? Yes, the offsite storage locations are in the local vicinity of the sites.

83 PWS 3.1.2.6(b). (a) Will the contractor be responsible for the vehicle to transport data to the offsite storage location? (b) If so, will mileage be cost-reimbursable?

The contractor acts a courier for data transport to the offsite storage location.

The Government will provide the requisite transportation to the offsite location.

84 PWS 3.1.2.8(c).

Can the Government please provide additional details on what is included in the statement "interact with other systems"?

The interaction refers to dependent systems. The STD has been revised in PWS paragraph 3.1.2.8. Please see revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP Amendment

FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

85 PWS 3.1.2.9.

Can the Government provide any estimate on when the Legacy systems will no longer be required?

The Government does not have an estimated sundown time for the legacy systems at the 26 NOS.

86 PWS 3.1.2.10.

Please elaborate on Area 52 to ensure vendors understand the environment.

The reference to Area 52 in PWS paragraph 3.1.2.10 is the AFIN NIPR Domain. Additionally, paragraph 3.1.2.10 has been moved to paragraph

2.2.21.1. Please see revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP Amendment FA8773- 12-R-8002-0004.

87 PWS 3.1.3.2.

Please define the Equipment Evaluations scope and requirements.

The QA requirement, Paragraph 3.1.3 and its subordinate paragraphs, were removed from the PWS. Please see revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

88 PWS 3.1.3.3.

What is the current duration of ESD and CPCP training sessions?

The QA requirement, Paragraph 3.1.3 and its subordinate paragraphs, were removed from the PWS. Please see revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

89 PWS 3.1.4.1.

Can the Government clarify that the training provided includes contractor and Government personnel?

The Training requirement, Paragraph 3.1.4 and its subordinate paragraphs, were removed from the PWS. Please see revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

90 PWS 3.1.4.5.

Is the Training Lab currently in compliance with the AF baseline?

The Training requirement, Paragraph 3.1.4 and its subordinate paragraphs, were removed from the PWS. Please see revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

91 PWS 3.1.6.1.

How many NOTAMS, TCNOs, NTOs, and MTOs are released during a normal 30-day period that have to be complied with?

On average, 100 NOTAMS, TCNOs, NTOs, and MTOs are released on a monthly basis. Also, when the PWS was revised the paragraph referenced changed to PWS Paragraph 3.1.4.1 from 3.1.6.1.

92 PWS 3.1.6.1.

(a) Please elaborate on the IMDS requirement. (b) How long does it currently take to perform IMDS duties during a standard 30-day period?

IMDS is described in TO 00-33A-1001, General Communications Activities Management Procedures and Practice. On average, IMDS updates currently take approximately three (3) to four (4) hours monthly. Also, when the PWS was revised the paragraph referenced changed to PWS Paragraph 3.1.4.1.

93 PWS 3.1.6.4.

(a) How many baselines currently exist for 26NOS work centers and (b) how often are they currently updated?

Baselines are established through the Change Management process. Every managed system at the 26 NOS has a Baseline. However, baselines updates are accomplished to reflect necessary approved changes as required. It impossible to predict how often they are updated. Also, when the PWS was revised the paragraph referenced changed to PWS Paragraph 3.1.4.4.

94 PWS 3.1.6.5.

How many 26NOS assets are currently tracked and are the relevant databases up to date?

On average, the 26 NOS tracks 2700 assets and the databases are up to date.

See PWS Appendix C for current 26 NOS equipment. Also, when the PWS was revised the paragraph referenced changed to PWS Paragraph 3.1.4.5.

95 PWS 3.1.7.1.

What is the current workload, in terms of manhours per month, required to administer and maintain knowledge management for 26NOS operations?

The Knowledge Management requirement, Paragraph 3.1.7 and its subordinate paragraphs, were removed from the PWS. Please see revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

96 PWS 3.1.7.3. (a) Is the referenced IMS already in existence or will it have to be created? (b) If it is in existence, what COTS tool is used to maintain it?

The Knowledge Management requirement, Paragraph 3.1.7 and its subordinate paragraphs, were removed from the PWS. Please see revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

97 PWS 3.1.7.3. Because CLINS X001 through X014 are “labor only” FFP CLINs, how should the offeror price the COTS tool for the integrated master schedule?

The Knowledge Management requirement, Paragraph 3.1.7 and its subordinate paragraphs, were removed from the PWS. Please see revised Attachment 3 - PWS in RFP Amendment FA8773-12-R-8002-0004.

98 PWS 3.2.1.1.

This PWS element does not specifically identify requirements to support the JRSS. Would the Government clarify whether JRSS support is planned within this PWS and, if so, define the JRSS tasks.

It is anticipated that JRSS implementation will be underway by contract start.

The contractor's responsibility for the operation and management of the AF portion of the DoD Information Network (DODIN) will remain the same.