Draft_RFP_questions17Mar.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 127 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8773-15-R-8007
About this file
Q As from Draft RFP
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 63 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
pws PAGE section question Response
| PWS, blanket | You refer to Tiers, but you took out the tiered structure from the Oct 2014 draft PWS. Has the tiers changed? Include in Reading Library? | Tier definitions are included in IAFNOS Appendix 2 - Definitions) | |
| PWS, blanket | In your enterprise architecture documents, will the government provide the equipment and warranty types for things like SANS, Virtual Environment, Mobile infrastructure, etc? | Equipment and software list are currently posted to the reading room. | |
| PWS | Recommend AF utilize Network performance metrics in lieu of simply trouble ticket metrics. | Trouble ticket metrics will be used to evaluate contractor performance | |
| PWS “Blanket Comment” | The draft PWS does not provide sufficient measurements and AQLs to measure contractor performance. Will the government consider adding ITIL-based process and performance measurements versus product deliverable metrics? [Note: You can reference ACT-Corp’s RFI Response in Oct 2015 for guidance on how to set up an ITIL-based performance measurement framework] | Trouble ticket metrics will be used to evaluate contractor performance | |
| NA | PWS--General | Question: Will the Gov't provide the system architecture (DoDAF Architecture Framework (viewpoints and models)) so the contractor can understand the essential data relationships/interfaces to support this contract. | Architecture framework documents will not be provded. The reading contains notional network diagrams for both NIPR/SIP boundary and all APCs. Core services are generally supported/delivered via the base ITN/EBN structre (reference NIPR/SIPR diagrams) |
| NA | PWS--General | Question: Will the Gov't provide a listing of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) software and software versions currently being used for this contract. | Primary GFE software listing is provided in the Reading Room |
| General PWS | General: Could the Government confirm the overall scope of the PWS encompasses technical operations/sustainment support across the AFIN, and the PWS does NOT include any manpower/staffing requirements for the ESD function? | This PWS does not provide ESD support | |
| PWS | Is there a comprehensive list of hardware the offeror is supposed to maintain? | Equipment and software list are currently posted to the reading room. | |
| PWS (General) | Where will the COTR/COR be located? | There will be a COTR/COR located at all locations identified in IANFOS Appendix 5 - Task Execution Location Matrix | |
| PWS (General) | How will each of the work areas be configured for (Cubes, crew positions, NIPR/SIPR, phone, VoIP, VoSIP, etc.?: |
a. NOSC
b. ESU
c. APC
d. AMAC
e. 690 OSS Vendors will be provided workspace and access to NIPR/SIPR workstations and NIPR/SIPR telephone devices
| PWS (General) | What is the C2 relationship of the AMAC to the 624th OC and 67 NWG operation units (e.g. 33 NWS, and 26 NOS)? | The AMAC orchestrates AFIN maintenance (including actions by 690 COG and 26 COG NOS units) in coordination with the 624OC. The AMAC only interacts with 33 NWS in support of defensive operations. | ||
| Page 6 | Scope | Please define what the core services are? | AFI 33-115 defines core services. | |
| Page 7 | Scope | What is the fourth managing unit? What APC is it responsible for? Does it share responsibilities? | PWS paragraph adjusted to reflect APC environment. | |
| Page 7 | Scope | Is the government supplying the Tier 0 automated tools and what are they? | vESD, a government furnished tool, is used for Tier 0 automation | |
| 1.1 | The reference refers to “The 690 NSS will provide flexibility in transitioning from a call center to managing Tier 0 automated tools, problem management and configuration management.” Please clarify if this should say 690 NSS or 690 OSS. This is the only reference to 690 NSS – Please provide a description of the 690 NSS and their role in this effort. | PWS updated to reflect the 690 COG structure. | ||
| p.5, p.11 | Sec 1.1; 3 Performance Requirements | The government makes no reference regarding Gateway locations. Will services provided by the IAFNOS contract include Gateway locations, or just the sites that are manned | Appendix 5 identified the locations from where enterprise services are delivered/provisioned. Some of these locations are also Gateway locations, but OM of the Gateways are not covered under this PWS. | |
| PWS 1.1 | What specifically constitutes the AF Cyberspace Security and Control System (CSCS) weapon system? | Both the Concept of Operations_CSCS Weapon System and IAFNOS Equipment Hardware and Software are posted to the Reading Room | ||
| PWS 1.1 | Where specifically are the AF Reserve units located and what role/responsibilities do they augment as it pertains to the PWS? | 860th NOS is located on Langley AFB VA. 960th NOS is located at Peterson AFB CO. They are both Reserve Associate Units providing support to the 83d NOS and the 561st NOS | ||
| PWS 1.1 | What are the “AFIN Services” (core services?) that are wholly contained within the O&M activities of the ESC and APCs? | OM and activites of the ESC and APC are provided both remotely and locally. Physical location is not relevent. | ||
| PWS 1.1 | Where and what are the configurations (drawings, floorplans, airflow, etc.) for the APCs? | Example diagrams and currently provided for APCs in the Reading Room. Floorplans not provided. | ||
| PWS 1.1 | What is the crew structure of the AMAC operated by the 690 OSS? | The organizational change associated with fully standing up the AMAC is not available for public consumption at this time. | ||
| PWS 1.1 | Where will the 690th OSS be located? In addition to the existing AMAC, what additional contractal requirements will the offeror have for the 690th OSS? | Lackland, no additional work beyond requirements in 3.5 & 3.6 | ||
| PWS 1.1 | Please define "mission support" for the COG. | Section 3.5 defines | ||
| PWS, 1.1 | Is there a timeline for the call center transition? | Intended to be accomplished before IAFNOS contract award | ||
| PWS 1.1, 3.5.7 | What current 690 NSS (Service Desk) functions are not included in the virtual Enterprise Service Desk migration? Will those functions remain in 690 NSS and out of scope of this PWS? | Such migration is not part of this contract | ||
| PWS, 1.2 | The PWS mentioned four units managing three APCs, but list only three units and APCs. What do you mean by four units managing three APCs? And, did the Peterson-based RPC mentioned in the October 2014 draft PWS go away? | Recommend changing paragraph to read "APCs: 83 NOS OL-B located at Andrews AFB, MD, 561 NOS OL-B at Scott AFB, IL, and 83 NOS OL at Wright-Patterson AFB OH." | ||
| PWS, 1.2 | Are there interfaces identified in standard operating procedures between the contractor supported NOSCs and ESUs and the ESUs at Ramstein and Hickham, and the other locations not included in the contract that we can review in the Reading Library? | Standard operating procedures support ESU communications regardless of workforce makeup, they are not part of the Reading Room | ||
| PWS 1.2 | What is the fourth unit managing and APC? | Recommend changing paragraph to read "APCs: 83 NOS OL-B located at Andrews AFB, MD, 561 NOS OL-B at Scott AFB, IL, and 83 NOS OL at Wright-Patterson AFB OH." | ||
| PWS 1.2 | What is the definition and relationship between “incidents” and “problems” (matrix of criteria to determine which) as the two terms appear to be used inconsistently throughout the PWS text? | It is our intent for these words to be defined according to ITIL standards. The PWS is updated to reflect. | ||
| PWS 1.2 | Will the two 690 COG units (HI, GE) as well as 561st Det 2 and Det 4 be held to the same oversight of the 690 COG and AMAC governance and policies? | |||
| A. PWS states the units are not “supported” by the contract; however, the AMAC is a function of the contract and drives “enterprise governance and mission support.” | Yes. AMAC: Conducts command and control of AFIN operations. They monitor, coordinate, and direct cyber shaping actions to assure air, space, and cyberspace operations. |
No contractor personnel will be operating at these two locations
| Para 2.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4 | In the above statements the Government is detailing how the contractor manages their shift operations. By requiring specific parameters, this could hamper the contractor’s ability to adapt to personnel issues or outages. Often times a non-traditional schedule may be used to meet the PWS requirements and the contractor would like the flexibility to schedule their workforce in the most efficient way possible. Please consider revising the above statements as follows, “The contractor must maintain 24/7 coverage and coordinate shift operations to ensure effective information exchange.” | It is imperative the crew integrity is accomplished. Formal shift structure facilitate that requirement |
| Para 2.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4 | Please clarify and define “course materials” and whether or not this includes classroom training, if so what standard/metric will the contractor be held to? | PWS updated to show need for study aids versus course materials and a standard was added. |
| 2.1 | It states, “The Government will neither supervisor contractor employees nor control the method by which the contractor performs the required tasks.” This tells us that the contract is a performance-based contract versus a “butt-in-seat” augmentation contract like current in place at both INOSCs. Is this the case or will this contract provide government augmentation forces? | Unless specifically called out in the Workload Distribution table, there will be contractor/military/civilian hybrid team |
| 2.2.2 | Does the government expect one primary and one alternate task lead to serve as primary and alternate site leads at each operating location to interact with the government? Please clarify the government’s expectation with respect to this section. | The government expects one primary and one alternate site lead at each operations location, including each APC. These leads are an additional duty and serve as the primary interface with the government. PWS clarified to show requirement. |
2.2.2 This specifies a task lead and alternate task lead be assigned to each operation location. Does this include the three APC locations? The government expects one primary and one alternate site lead at each operations location, including each APC. These leads are an additional duty and serve as the primary interface with the government
| Page 8 | Para 2.2.2; & Append. 5 | Is the government requiring the contractor to ensure a Task Lead and Alternate be the minimum required personnel at all locations including the OL and OL-B sites? What level of the DOD 8570.01-M certification is required for these position? | Site lead(s) are additional duties. 8570 certifications will be specific to the primary duties of the individual. Minimum certifications requirements are Security + | |
| Page 9 | 2.2.2. | What is the (DoDD) 8570.01-M certification requirement for the Task Leads? Are the Task Leads and Alternate Task Leads required to physically reside onsite at all 6 locations as stipulated in Appendix 5 - Task Execution Location Matrix. | Site lead(s) are additional duties. 8570 certifications will be specific to the primary duties of the individual. Minimum certifications requirements are Security + | |
| PWS 2.2.2 | Regarding the requirement, “The task lead shall be available during normal duty hours, Monday through Friday…”; please define normal hours. | PWS updated to provide normal duty hours Monday through Friday. | ||
| PWS 2.2.2 | Is the expectation to have a full-time certified employee and alternate at each ESU, APC, NOSC (and Detachment)? Or is the expectation primarily at the NOSC (main squadron) and ESU locations? | All locations. | ||
| PWS 2.2.2 | Must the PM and Deputy PM to be located in San Antonio TX? | There is no requirement for a PM or Deputy PM in this paragraph | ||
| PWS 2.2.9 | Can the government please provide historical workload or estimated level of effort data on this requirement? | It is inherent in the workload estimates provided in the Appendices. | ||
| PWS 2.2.9 | Could the Government provide historical data on the number of requests and frequency? Please define what is intended as "responsive" in regard to a request-- is this a weekly request, an annual request? Please characterize the complexity of the request. | It is inherent in the workload estimates provided in the Appendices. This covers normal daily coordiantion between mission areas and does not drive additional workload | ||
| PWS 2.2.10 | Will the government provide standards or AQLs for this requirement? | PWS clarified. The Government expects the contractor to assist in maintaining operational readiness. Section 2 does not have standards or AQLs. | ||
| Page 8 | 2.2.11 | Will government provide a copy of the MPTO 33A-1100? | Yes. | |
| PWS 2.2.11 | Is a copy of the MPTO 33A-1100 available in the reading room? | Yes. | ||
| PWS Page 8 - | 2.2.12 | What are the examples of information requests? | Examples would be Ports and Protocols currently allowed. Configurations of devices within the AFIN and information necessary to support daily change requests | |
| PWS 2.2.12 | Can the government please provide historical workload or estimated level of effort data on this requirement? | This is performed daily as part of normal change operations | ||
| PWS 2.2.12 | Who and where is the “Information Assurance (IA) program? | The IA programs are currently located at both the 83d/561st/AMAC | ||
| PWS 2.2.12 | Could the government provide historical data on the number of requests and frequency? Is there a known percentage of the IA requests that are immediate? How many monthly? | This is performed daily as part of normal change operations | ||
| PWS 2.2.13 | Can the government please provide historical workload or estimated level of effort data on this requirement? | This is performed daily as part of normal change operations | ||
| PWS Page 8, | Para 2.2.14; Append 3 Workload | Workload identified under Appendix 3 is change management tickets and incident tickets. How will the contractor personnel be required to integrate into a mission team? | Trouble and incident tickets are completed through a hybrid team as identified in the Workload Distribution Table | |
| PW 2.2.15 | Can the government please provide historical workload or estimated level of effort data on this requirement? | No. This is inclduded in the daily services provided by the contractor | ||
| PWS 2.3.3.1 | Will the government provide training for any GOTS software or systems? | Yes | ||
| PWS 2.3.3.2 | Will the government provide a codified listing of commercial applications to be supported? | Equipment and software list are currently posted to the reading room. | ||
| PWS Page 10 | Para 2.3.4.5; Certifications | What is "positional qualification training"? Will the government provide this training at no cost to the contractor? | Yes, the government will provide the training..The commercial certifications required under this contract will address a large majority of this requirement | |
| Para 2.3.4.6 | Please provide a listing of all devices, software and technologies that are currently deployed on the network. | Equipment and software list are currently posted to the reading room. | ||
| 2.3.4.6 | “The contractor shall follow a two-person integrity (TPI) compliance process on all incident tickets or change requests that are categorized risk level 2 through 5 and any ticket categorized at High or Critical….Any Tier 1 ticket (i.e., Wing Commanders, General Officers or their support staff).” As the Government is making delineation between numbered Tiers, Risk Levels and Categories, please provide a definition of each Tier, Risk Level and Category and the Government definition for each. | MPTO 00-33A-1100 (Reading Room) Figure 3.6 and para 2.x and PWS Appendix 2 | ||
| 10 | 2.3.4.6 | Section 2.3.4.6 states "The contractor shall update and maintain, at their expense, certifications equivalent to technology owned, operated and maintained by the United States Air Force (USAF) covered by this contract. The Government will notify the contractor in writing when a new certification is required, and the contractor shall have six months to obtain the new certifications for their employees." | ||
| Questions: By what means and how often would a new certification be required? Will the Government fund certification requirements changes? | The government will notify the vendor in writing. Once notified the vendor will have 6 months to comply with the new requirements. The government will NOT fund these changes | |||
| 2.3.4.6 | Please clarify if this requirement applies to previously unidentified new technologies that are installed after contract award? If so, for planning purposes, could the government please identify new technologies that are currently planned for implementation? | The government will notify the vendor in writing. Once notified the vendor will have 6 months to comply with the new requirements. The government will NOT fund these changes | ||
| 2.3.4.6 | The Government states that the contractor will be responsible for updating and maintaining certifications on technology that the government currently in place and new technology as the government deems necessary. Can the government provide insights into what new technology is in the pipeline that will require certifications by contractors? | The government will notify the vendor in writing. Once notified the vendor will have 6 months to comply with the new requirements. The government will NOT fund these changes | ||
| PWS 2.5.1 | What are the building numbers, locations, layout for the I-NOSC (including Dets), ESU, APC, AMAC, and 690 OSS locations referenced in the draft PWS? | Specific builing numbers are irrelevent. Work locations are identified in the Reading Room | ||
| 3 & 4 | Are all tools, equipment and software described or listed in Sections 3 and 4 of the PWS furnished by the government? If not what software, tools, and equpment must the vendor provide. | Yes. All are provided by the Government | ||
| PWS 3 | What NOSC (and detachment), ESU, and APC functions will be inheretly government and excluded or shared (%workforce) from the functions outlined in Para 3 of draft PWS? | Messaging/Collaboration are the only area that is 100% contractor. All other functions are a shared/hybrid operations | ||
| PWS, section 3 | This section is full of performance standards measuring how quickly the contractor addresses trouble tickets versus measuring how well the network performs. It seems the not following ITIL best practices and focusing on network performance based on people, process and technology. Will the government consider establishing network performance metrics for the contractor to meet versus simply measuring how quickly we respond to trouble tickets? Will the government consider using performance standards and deliverables for each separate performance requirement? | No. Trouble ticket metrics will be used to evaluate contractor performance | ||
| PWS 3.1 | Explain the AOR and boundary limitations (if any) for the patch management for “servers, workstations, and infrastructure devices” in relationship to the O&M functions outlines in para 3.1.1? Impact to overall scope of accountability and responsibility on NIPR/SIPR and functional organizations. | Assume minimum of 80% patch compliance responsibility at the NOS level | ||
| PWS 3.1.1.1 | Will the government provide specifics to contractual service levels required here? | Performance standards are identified in the PWS | ||
| PWS 3.1.1.1 | What is the definition of “enterprise capabilities” and does this constitute the CSCS? | Enterprise capabilities are provided through the tools/equipment lists provded in the Reading Room | ||
| 12 | 3.1.1.1 | Section 3.1.1.1 bullet 7 states 'reporting orders compliance in the Government approved compliance tracking database'. Question: Is this a Government provided compliance tracking database? If so, what is the tool? | ACT is web based tool and it is provided/maintained by the government | |
| 12 | 3.1.1.1 | Question: What is are the maintenance window timeframe for PMIs? | PMIs are a sliding window based upon the specific needs of a specific base. Generally, PMI windows are 2300-0600 local | |
| PWS, 3.1.1.1 | Will the government provide the applicable government orders and standard operating procedures and processes in the Reading Library that are currently used within the 690th? | Yes | ||
| section 3.1.1.2, Performance Standards AQL of 95% | What are the measurements of objectives so companies bidding know what we are signing up for wrt Exercise’s performance standards? And, what are the metrics to be maintained and KPI to support the AQL? | Exercise performance standards are the exact same as daily operational standards | ||
| PWS 3.1.1.2 | Will exercise and inspection support be required outside of or in excess of regularly-scheduled team hours? If so, we will need additional bogeys for surge planning? | Exercise participation will be in normal hours | ||
| Various starting with 3.1.1.2 | For AQLs expressed as percentages, will the compliance to a standard be based on a measurement methodology that is mutually agreed upon by the vendor and the Government? If not, and the Government has a measurement methodology available, may it be provided to bidders for review? | Realistic measurement methologies will be mutually agreed to during contract execution. | ||
| PWS 3.1.1.3 | What constitutes the 690 COG AOR to better determine and aligned “touch maintenance services” as the PWS references external routers at all bases and locations? | PWS updated to show "touch maintenance" methodology desired by Government. | ||
| PWS 3.1.1.3 | What is the definition of and location of the “data centers” referenced in PWS, Para 3.1.1.3? Relationship to the APCs? | PWS updated to define locations where physical infrastructure shall be maintained. | ||
| PWS 3.1.1.3 | Are the MOA/SLA’s available for all equipment and interfaces within the facility management functions of the 690 COG AOR? | No | ||
| 14 | 3.1.1.3 | 3.1.1.3 states ' The contractor personnel supporting Section 3.3.4 tasks shall have industry certification reuqirments identified in Appendix 6 Certifications.' | ||
| Question: This Section reference appears to be in error. Do the contractor personnel supporting 3.1.1.3 need industry certification requirments identified in Appendix 6 Certifications? | Reference removed from PWS | |||
| 14 | 3.1.1.3 | Question: Are the equipment invnentories currently up to date and accurate? | Deliverable for Equipment Inventories is removed from PWS. | |
| (p.13) | PWS Sec 3.1.1.3 | The Government states: The contractor shall provide touch maintenance services for all servers and equipment, and interface with facility management in the 690 COG AOR. Will the physical infrastructure referred to in PWS Section 3.1.1.3 be limited to IT equipment? If not, what additional equipment will need to be maintained by the contractor? | Yes, it is only IT equipment | |
| PWS 3.1.1.3 | Define meaning of 690 COG AOR? Does that mean equipment only at sited designated and potential deployment sites? | AOR is defined in Section 1.2 of the PWS and all locations are provided in Reading Room, file called "690 COG Locations" | ||
| PWS 3.1.1.3 | What is the Enterprise Information Technology Service Management (EITSM)? Remedy? If so, will the government provide the Remedy baseline, version, architecture, workflows, and integration with the vESD in the Reading Library? | Yes, it is Remedy. Contractor is responsible to using this system not maintaining it. | ||
| PWS 3.1.1.3 | Will the government provide the ASI policy and standard operating procedures for reporting and associated processes in the Reading Library? | ASI information is provided in Reading Room. | ||
| PWS Page 13, | Para 3.1.1.3 | To ensure contractor staffing meets 95% of this requirement, is additional staffing required above normal operations workload during exercises and inspections? If so, please provide the expected number of inspections and exercises to be conducted during the year. | no additional staffing is expected | |
| PWS Page 13, | Para 3.1.1.3 | What is the extent of cable management support required on this contract? Is the government requiring the contractor to install/pull cables? | The contractor is expected to conduct cable management and installation of patch cables/cords associated with work prescribed in change requests and incident tickets where contractor personnel are located or sent TDY. | |
| PWS Page 13 | Para 3.1.1.3 | Will the government clarify this statement to relate specifically for environments housing AFIN equipment? | UNCLEAR | |
| PWS Page 13, | Para 3.1.1.3 | Will the government provide examples of the "interfacing" requirements? Interfacing conveys an expectation that the contractor is responsible for facility actions but the PWS is for IT support. | "Interfacing" in this context means having open discussions with the facility managers on facility requirements | |
| PWS Page 13, | Para 3.1.1.3 | Thermal loads are the amount of energy needed to be added or removed from a space by the HVAC system in an office space or data center. Right-sizing the HVAC system requires understanding of the heating and cooling systems, capabilities and loads within the space. Is the government asking the contractor to assume HVAC management at the locations specified in Appendix 5? | No..we are tenants of all of the facilities..the facilities are owned by other organizations. | |
| PWS Page 13, | Para 3.1.1.3 | Is the Master Station Log of APC activity located in EITSM? | Irrelevent to where the MSL to located | |
| PWS 3.1.1.4 | Will the government provide a copy of any relevant 690 COG Operating Instructions (to include incident management) in the Reading Library? | Yes | ||
| PWS Page 14, | Para 3.1.1.4 | Will government provide a copy of the applicable DOD, AF regulations and 690 COG Operation Instructions regarding Incident Management? | Yes - TO 33100? | |
| PWS Page 14, | Para 3.1.1.4 | Is the government stating the contractor will restore services within a prescribed time frame? If so, what is the MTTR IAW DoD, AF regulations, and 690 COG Operation Instructions regarding Incident Management? | Outages are worked according to incident ticket priorities to restore services per TO 00-33A-1100 | |
| PWS 3.1.1.6 | Please clarify… Is the “within 1 day” requirement is to acknowledge the tasking, where the response times will be individually determined per tasking? | Yes, it is 1 day to acknowledge the task with response times Individually determined | ||
| PWS 3.1.1.6 | Since QA tasking’s must be responded to within one business day, are these responses considered to be part of the overall incident ticket tracking and metrics? Or should they be addressed in a separate tracking category? | It will be a separate tracking category | ||
| PWS Page 15, | Para 3.1.1.6 | To eliminate possible personal services concerns, recommend the government revise this statement to read "The Government QA workcenter will coordinate with the contractor Task Lead and/or QA Lead to visit the technicians with the intent of extracting information or configuration settings to satisfy internal or external investigations and/or make requests to modify the authorized baseline." | Adjusted 3.1.1.6 to address personal services concerns. | |
| PWS Page 15, | Para 3.1.1.6 | It is requested that the government provide examples of QA tasking's in order to determine the workload required to develop the POA&M within one day. | Examples are answering questions is supporting After Action Reviews and Operations review Boards. Additional task could be to provide answers to configuration baseline questions | |
| PWS 3.1.1.7 | Earlier you stated contractor will build upon what the government and previous contractor has accomplished (paraphrased). What is the government currently using to electronically document preventive and corrective maintenance? Are you expecting a contractor owned, or will the AF provide the system for historical record keeping? | The Air Force will provide the system to use. | ||
| 3.1.1.7 | Will the government provide TO 00-33A-1001 in the Reading Library? | Yes | ||
| 15 | 3.1.1.7 | 3.1.1.7 Performance Standard a) STD: IAW TO 00-33A-1001- Methods and Procedures: General Cyberspace Support Activities Management Procedures and Practice Requirements. Question: For this particular STD, how will this be measured? | QA performs a random check of completed PMI's for accuracy and completeness | |
| PWS Page 15 | Para 3.1.2.1 | What is the governments expectation of "information course materials"? | Recommend adding defintions in Appendix 2 - Definitions |
The standard/metric will be the ability of the employee to successfully complete the task as trained via Knowledge Transfer
| 3.1.2.1 | Who do we transfer knowledge to? | Military and governement civilians | ||
| 3.1.2.1 | Is there any workload information on how often the requirement to provide informal course materials may be required? | No. Informal course materials by definition is on an as required basis. Informal course materiels could be a single powerpoint slide documenting a specific process. | ||
| PWS Page 15 | Para 3.1.3.1 | Is the government requiring the contractor to supply an Information Assurance Labor Category? | No | |
| PWS Page 16, | Para 3.1.4.1 | Will government clarify the STD? Is the government requesting a SME review of technical and conceptual items or an administrative review IAW government policies? | 3.1.4.1 is updated to removed IAW with "Local document review policies" | |
| 16 | 3.1.4.3 | 3.1.4.3 states: 'This task includes reporting detailed information in accordance with the escalation matrix standard for outages and events. | ||
| Question: Will the government provide the escalation matrix for outages and events? | Provided in Reading Room | |||
| 3.1.4.3 | Will the Escalation / Routing Matrix (OGV-VA-1) be available in the Reading Room? | Provided in Reading Room | ||
| 3.1.4.3 | Will the government provide OGV-VA-1, Escalation Matrix in the Reading Library? | Provided in Reading Room | ||
| PWS Page 16, | Para 3.1.4.3 | Will the government provide a copy of OGV-VA-1 Escalation Matrix / Routing Matrix? | Provided in Reading Room | |
| 3.1.5 | The discussion for this task involves making input to POA&Ms, but the deliverable is minutes. Will the Government also require delivery of POA&Ms and in what format? | The contractor is expected to provide inputs during meetings and document them via A003. | ||
| 3.1.6 | “- creating metrics and developing processes for improving metrics”. This statement assumes the contractor is responsible for defining performance metrics for the AFIN, which may not be in the best interest of the Government. It is believed that the Government would typically define the metrics for performance, while the contractor measures the network to establish a baseline and ensure compliance. Upon analysis of the baseline the contractor would then develop and institute processes for improving performance. Please clarify whether the contractor is responsible for creating the performance metrics for the AFIN. | Contractor is responsible for making recommendations on the creation/modification of performance metrics to assist in the improvement of AFIN performance. Section 3.1.6 is updated in the PWS to reflect. | ||
| 3.1.6 | Is the intent that the A010 Metric Plan covers all AQLs called out in the PWS? | No | ||
| 3.1.7 | The a) performance standard mentions industry best practices, however, many of the changes may impact AF Directives or Orders. Should this statement be amended to require the deliverable to be in the format most advantageous to the Government, incorporating industry best practices? | Contractor provides recommendations within the confines of existing AF directives and orders that utilize industry best practices. | ||
| PWS Page 17/18, | Para 3.1.7 | Is the government requiring Network Engineering and Design support for the AFIN infrastructure? | No | |
| PWS Page 17/18, | Para 3.1.7 | Will the government provide a copy of TO 00-33A-1001 | Yes | |
| 3.1.8 | Is the Incident Categorized risk matrix available in the reading room? What percentage of tickets is categorized at level 2 through 5? As level 2 through 5 require a Two Person Integrity (TPI), Appendix 3 does not address how many tickets only require 1 FTE or TPI, only the amount of tickets in general. To adequately project manning, what percentage of tickets are at level 2-5 or are categorized at high or critical? | The Risk Matrix is in the Reading Room. TPI is included in the Average time to process change requests and incident tickets. | ||
| PWS Page 18 | Para 3.1.8 | Will government provide the governence that dictates the ticket categories and associated users? Does the government have a end user break out of how many VIPs are on the AFIN under the 690 COG AOR? | The governence for different user categories in provided on 67 CW Escalation Matrix (OGV/VA 1, 20130919) provided in the Reading Room. | |
| 3.1.8 | If TPI is a shared responsibility, how can the contractor ensure this requirement is met? Should our staffing support the TPI requirements? | Staffing should support TPI based on workload distribution. Unless workload distribution is 100%, TPI workload will be completed by a hybrid team of military, civilian, and/or contractor personnel. | ||
| PWS 3.1.8 | What is the risk level determination criteria to categorize risk levels 2-5 and ticket categories of Low – Critical? | The Risk Matrix is in the Reading Room. TPI is included in the Average time to process change requests and incident tickets. | ||
| PWS 3.1.8 | Could the Government please provide clarification and information on the 5 Risk Levels? | The Risk Matrix is in the Reading Room. TPI is included in the Average time to process change requests and incident tickets. | ||
| PWS 3.1.8 | Could the Government please define ticket categories, eg. High or Critical? | The Risk Matrix is in the Reading Room. TPI is included in the Average time to process change requests and incident tickets. | ||
| (p.18) | PWS Sec 3.1.8 | The Government states: Technician one shall perform all necessary steps to prepare the required action(s) to resolve the incident ticket or change request according to Government standards and/or procedures. The government references incident ticket and change request risk level categories in PWS Section 3.1.8. Where are these risk level categories defined? | The Risk Matrix is in the Reading Room. TPI is included in the Average time to process change requests and incident tickets. | |
| (p.18);(p.19) | PWS Sec 3.1.8; 3.1.11 | PWS Section 3.1.8 lists the categories that require two-person integrity (TPI), i.e. any Tier 1 ticket (i.e., Wing Commanders, General Officers or their support staff). It also states that: “TPI technicians can consist of a combination of Military/Civilian/Contractor.” However, PWS Section 3.1.11 states: “The contractor shall perform Tier II/III direct operator and user support for AFIN core services.” Will the IAFNOS contractor be responsible for Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III functions/taskings? | Yes | |
| 3.1.8, and 3.1.11 (mention Tier II/III) | You took out the Tiers explanation from the October 2014 draft PWS. In this section, you reference Tier 1 for Wing CCs and GOs. Does the 690th use a tiered services approach and if so, where can we find reference to the tiered system? | Yes, in Appendix 2. | ||
| PWS Page 19 | Para 3.1.11 | Please define "core services". | See AFI 33-115 | |
| PWS 3.1.11 | Who performs Tier 0 and Tier 1 direct operator and user support for AFIN core services? | See Appendix 2 for Tier Structure | ||
| 3.1.11 | “The contractor shall perform Tier II/III direct operator and user support for AFIN core services.” Please specify which subset of core services this pertains to. | All cores services. | ||
| 3.1.11 | “The contractor shall perform Tier II/III direct operator and user support for AFIN core services.” Will the government please clarify whether this is in direct support of other personnel responsible for AFIN O&M services, or in support of AFIN / AFNET users at the Base/Past/Station level? | Both AFIN operators and users. | ||
| 19 | 3.2.1 | Section 3.2.1 'Performance Standard states 'a) STD: Complete a minimum of 70% of the change requests and incidents assigned to Infrastructure Operations within 30 days of creation.' Question: Is this 70% of the 'Contractor Tickets' or 70% of the total tickets for both Contractor and Government (which would equate to 100% of Contractor Tickets)? | 70% of total tickets assigned to Infrastructure Operations | |
| PWS 3.2.1 | Is there an asset list for 690 COG AOR Infrastructure devices? | Yes, in the Reading Room | ||
| 3.2.1 | “Complete a minimum of 70% of the change requests and incident tickets assigned to Infrastructure Operations within 30 days of creation.” Will the Government provide the current % of change requests completed within 30 days of creation? | No, this information is not available. | ||
| 3.2.1 | “Ensure that no more than 15% of incident tickets and change requests in the Infrastructure Operations backlog are more than 60 days old.” Will the government please provide the current % of incident tickets and change requests in the Infrastructure Backlog which are greater than 60 days old? | No, this information is not available. | ||
| 3.2.1 | “Add and update all Infrastructure Operations controlled devices in the CMDB within 24 hours of adding or changing configuration of the device.” What is the format of the CMDB being used for this task today? | The intended solution is EITSM (Remedy). The contractor will help evolve and consolidate the configuration management function. No current CMDB exists. | ||
| (p.19);(p.28);(p.38) | PWS Sec 3.2.1; 3.3 ; 3.4 | The government does not provide a list of boundary and infrastructure devices and technologies to be supported by each I-NOSC, ESU, and APC cited in Section 3. Will the Government provide a list of boundary and infrastructure devices and technologies (by hardware and software types and quantities of each) to be supported by each I-NOSC, ESU, and APC cited in Section 3? | Yes, in the Reading Room | |
| PWS, 3.2.1 | You mention contractor will complete a minimum of 70% of change requests within 30 days of creation. Is that: 1) contractor is only assigned 70% and government does the other 30%; or 2) of the 100% change requests, contractor will complete at least 70% of them within 30 days of creation? Note: changes come in many sizes and complexity to include standard, normal, emergency, and time-sensitive. You might want to clarify this area. Same holds true for the no more than 15% within 60 days. Will we be able to see incident historical information in the Reading Library since incumbent companies have access to that information? | PWS is revised to allow the contractor to completed 80% of the contractor assigned workload within 30 days and requires the contractor to allow no more than 15% of tickets in the mission area backlog to not be over 60 days older without Government coordination and approval. (See revised PWS) No historical is provided in the Reading Room. | ||
| 3.2.1, ; 3.5.3 | What CMDB is the 690th using for the AFNET? Is it fully configured and implemented in accordance with ITIL SACM best practices? All assets accounted for in the CMDB at contract start? | The intended solution is EITSM (Remedy). The contractor will help evolve and consolidate the configuration management function. No current CMDB exists. | ||
| Draft PWS, section 3.2.1 standards | Will the government provide the AFNET configuration management policy, practices, TOs, etc in the Reading Library? | Yes | ||
| 3.2.1 | For the metrics articulated in this section, are the percentages measured at a fixed point in time (EOM, EOW, etc…) or on a rolling basis that may be inspected at any time? | Random basis | ||
| 3.2.1.1 | “administering and managing infrastructure devices to include routers, switches, load balancers, and wireless local area network (WLAN) devices.” Does this scope include managing CITS WLAN controllers resident at the Base level, or only those deployed in direct support of the 690COG? | Yes, this includes all CITS WLAN controllers. | ||
| PWS 3.2.1.1 | What is the definition of “infrastructure devices” and “technologies”? | Infrastructure devices and technologies are network switches, routers, load balancers, accelerators or other devices used to control and move network traffic across a network. | ||
| PWS 3.2.1.1 | Are the current (AS-IS) boundary/topology diagrams available in the reading room? | Yes | ||
| 3.2.1.1 | Will the government provide a logical and physical architecture of the 690 COG AOR Network Infrastructure in the Reading Library? | Yes | ||
| 3.2.1.1 | Shouldn’t the vendor be responsible for reporting security violations and taking corrective action, and the Government for taking overall responsibility for managing their resolution? | Take action at the direction of the Government. | ||
| 3.2.1.2 | “ - using Government-provided network monitoring tools to perform intrusion detection, identification, and internal/external IT threat analysis.” Will the government identify which tools are in place to perform this requirement today? | Yes, in the Reading Room | ||
| 3.2.1.2 | Will the contractor have to create AS IS documentation, or is documentation available that can be validated as part of our overall transition plan? | Yes, the contractor will create "AS-IS" documentation using government provided tools. | ||
| PWS Page 21, | Para 3.2.1.2 | The intrusion dection services is normally performed by the Boundary Operations technicians versus the Infrasturture Operations. Recommend this task be moved to the Boundary Operations tasks. | ||
| It is appropriate for intrusion detection to be accomplished in both boundary and infrastructure operations. | ||||
| PWS 3.2.1.3 | What is the relationship (role/responsibility) with the AFIN PMO as it pertains to the configuring and installation activities along with DIACAP/RMF accreditations efforts? | Contractor will receive direction to configure and install devices. The accreditation concerns will be addressed by the Government. | ||
| 3.2.2 | “Complete a minimum of 70% of the change requests and incident tickets assigned to Vulnerability Management Operations within 30 days of creation.” Will the Government provide the current % of change requests completed within 30 days of creation? | No, this information is not available. | ||
| 3.2.2 | “Ensure that no more than 15% of incident tickets and change requests in the Vulnerability Management Operations backlog are more than 60 days old.” Will the government please provide the current % of incident tickets and change requests in the Vulnerability Management Backlog which are greater than 60 days old? | No, this information is not available. | ||
| 3.2.2 | For the metrics articulated in this section, are the percentages measured at a fixed point in time (EOM, EOW, etc…) or on a rolling basis that may be inspected at any time? | Random basis | ||
| 3.2.2 | Will TO 00-33A-1109 - AF-GIG Vulnerability Management be available in the Reading Room? | Yes | ||
| Para 3.2.2 | “a) STD: Complete a minimum of 100% of the change requests and incident tickets assigned to Messaging and Ensure that no more than 15% of incident tickets and change requests in the Directory and Collaboration within 30 days of creation. b) STD: Authentication Services backlog are more than 60 days old. "Please clarify as these sections appear to set different standards. Which standard/metric will the contractor be held to? | PWS updated and clarified to reflect Government requirements. | ||
| 3.2.2.1 | How will the government measure AQL for compliance with AFI 33-115 and other references for Vulnerability Assessments? 97% per scan, per vulnerability? | AQL is removed from the standard. | ||
| PWS 3.2.2.1 | Will the government please clarify the thresholds required reporting repeat high vulnerabilities | The threshold is fluid. | ||
| 3.2.2.1 | “The contractor shall perform vulnerability assessment using AF provided tools.” Will the government please identify which tools are being used to perform this task today? | Software tools are provided in Reading Room. | ||
| 3.2.2.1 | “- automating procedures using scripts, Sequel (SQL)/database administration, or other available technology.” This statement assumes there is a current application utilizing SQL for backend Vulnerability Assessment collection. Please clarify if the government has an existing application utilizing a SQL DB for Vulnerability Management, or whether the contractor is required to develop SQL based applications to enhance current VMS data management. | The contractor will use existing government tools and is not required to develop applications. | ||
| 3.2.2.1 | Will AFI 33-115, Network Operations; TO 00-33A-1001; TO 00-33A-1109; 690 NSGI 33-102 and CTO 08-005 be available in the Reading Room? | AFI is available publicly. TOs are available in the Reading Room. | ||
| 3.2.2.1 | Is the statement generating reports that identify security posture of the base (i.e. deficiencies, history of repeats, etc.), specific to the IA Controls? | No | ||
| 23 | 3.2.2.2 | Section 3.2.2.2 states 'The contractor shall perform patch management for servers, workstations, and infrastructure devices.' | ||
| Question: For patch management testing is their a test lab? | No, there are test machines at each base. | |||
| 3.2.2.2 | “- planning software pushes using approved AF enterprise patch management software.” Will the Government identify what AF enterprise patch management software is in use today? | Yes, in the Reading Room | ||
| 3.2.2.2 | The STD indicates AFIN equipment and infrastructure devices comply with all orders as reflected in VMS or its successor. Can the Government indicated when VMS may be replaced and by what tool? | No, that information is not available. | ||
| PWS 3.2.2.3.1 | Explain the calculation of AFIN NIPR/SIPR HBSS managed operations of approx. 500,000 clients? Server hosts and managed workstations on NIPR would appear to be well in excess of 500,000 clients, not to mention the inclusion of SIPR hosts. | PWS 3.2.2.3.1 adjusted to reflect approximate number of clients. | ||
| 3.2.2.3.1 | The HBSS performance standard is to complete training. Will the government consider tying the standard to operating the HBSS system and providing measurable value? | The standard has been removed. | ||
| 3.2.2.3.1 | The STD, Complete training IAW work center training plan, does not seem relevant to the task of managing 500K devices. What is the intent of this standard? | The standard has been removed. | ||
| PWS 3.2.3 | What is inclusive of the network boundary devices within the AOR? (FW, Proxy, DMZs, DNS, external base boundary, etc.). | Notional diagrams with devices are provided in the Reading Room. | ||
| 3.2.3 | “Complete a minimum of 70% of the change requests and incident tickets assigned to Boundary Operations within 30 days of creation.” Will the Government provide the current % of change requests completed within 30 days of creation? | No, this information is not available. | ||
| 3.2.3 | For the metrics articulated in this section, are the percentages measured at a fixed point in time (EOM, EOW, etc…) or on a rolling basis that may be inspected at any time? | Random basis | ||
| 3.2.3 | What tool is the CMDB maintained in, and is it current in documenting configurations today? | The intended solution is EITSM (Remedy). The contractor will help evolve and consolidate the configuration management function. No current CMDB exists. | ||
| 3.23 | For the metrics articulated in this section, are the percentages measured at a fixed point in time (EOM, EOW, etc…) or on a rolling basis that may be inspected at any time? | Random basis | ||
| 3.2.3 | If TPI is a shared responsibility, how can the contractor ensure this requirement is met? Should our staffing support the TPI requirements? | Staffing should support TPI based on workload distribution. Unless workload distribution is 100%, TPI workload will be completed by a hybrid team of military, civilian, and/or contractor personnel. | ||
| 24 | 3.2.3.2 | Question: Are the monitoring tools discussed in this section fully deployed and operational? | Yes | |
| PWS 3.2.3.4 | Is it the Government intent to have every ETM function as defined in the PWS require two-person integrity (TPI). i.e. user telephone ext change request or primarily only VPS functions? Please expand upon which functions will require TPI. | Changes to configuration require TPI per Section 3.1.8. | ||
| 3.2.3.4 | If TPI is a shared responsibility, how can the contractor ensure this requirement is met? Should our staffing support the TPI requirements? | Staffing should support TPI based on workload distribution. Unless workload distribution is 100%, TPI workload will be completed by a hybrid team of military, civilian, and/or contractor personnel. | ||
| 3.3.1 | “Ensure that no more than 15% of incident tickets and change requests in the Boundary Operations backlog are more than 60 days old.” Will the government please provide the current % of incident tickets and change requests in the Boundary Operations Backlog which are greater than 60 days old? | No, this information is not available. | ||
| 3.3.1 | “Complete a minimum of 70% of the change requests and incident tickets assigned to Directory and Authentication Services within 30 days of creation.” Will the Government provide the current % of change requests completed within 30 days of creation? | No, this information is not available. | ||
| 3.3.1 | “Ensure that no more than 15% of incident tickets and change requests in the Directory and Authentication Services backlog are more than 60 days old.” Will the government please provide the current % of incident tickets and change requests in the backlog and are greater than 60 days old? | No, this information is not available. | ||
| 3.3.1 | For the metrics articulated in this section, are the percentages measured at a fixed point in time (EOM, EOW, etc…) or on a rolling basis that may be inspected at any time? | Random basis | ||
| 3.3.1 | If TPI is a shared responsibility, how can the contractor ensure this requirement is met? Should our staffing support the TPI requirements? | Staffing should support TPI based on workload distribution. Unless workload distribution is 100%, TPI workload will be completed by a hybrid team of military, civilian, and/or contractor personnel. | ||
| 29 | 3.3.1.1 | Section 3.3.1.1 bullet 6 states 'handling a minimum of ten Enterprise projects at a given time' | ||
| Question: Can the Government provide more detail on the "ten enterprise projects" such as type, magnitude and locations? Is this requirement to ensure that the contractor has project management on staff or to ensure that there is engineering and deployment personnel on staff? | Statement removed from 3.3.1.1 | |||
| PWS 3.3.1.1 | In the context of this requirement, can the government please clarify what is meant by the term “project” in “handling a minimum of ten Enterprise projects at any given time” | Statement removed from 3.3.1.1 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .