Combined_CyOFTS_II_Questions.xlsx

Combined Questions

Historical information on annual costs the this effort over the past 10 years has run => $5M per year;

the Governments intent in lowering the thresholds from $5M to $3.5M is to provide for the increased competition without sacrificing quality 2 CYOFTS II RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method 39th Information Operations Squadron Hurlburt Field, Florida 39th Information Operations Squadron, Detachment 1 Joint Base San Antonio, Texas Section M- Attachment 1 Ref. Question 1, Recommendation: If no changes are made to the Past Performance levels, would the government consider modifying the current evaluation criteria priorities to make Technical a graded criteria (rather than a simple pass/fail) to allow for a more competitive grading criteria that does not favor the current incumbent contractor Team? Under this approach, we would recommend that Technical would be rated higher than Past Performance and both Technical and Past Performance are rated significantly higher than Price.

By not scoring the Technical evaluation (keeping it Pass/Fail), the Government feels it is providing equal advantage to all offerors.

By scoring the Technical evaluation, the Government feels the incumbent will hold a distinct advantage over competition.

3 CYOFTS II Appendices Historical Information & Education / Certification Requirements for Labor Categories Section 8.0 Appendices Question: Will Contractors be required to price the Instructor Level 1 labor category? If so, when does the Instructor Level 1 labor category apply. Per Tier 8.1.1, Current CME Level of Support and Required Minimum Level of Support Day 1, Instructors Level I are expected to be Tier II prior to contract start. (If this pre-contract start Certification level remains, the government is strongly favoring the incumbent over other 8a competitors). Current PWS Note:

* Denotes present day Instructor Developers in training. All new in training Instructor Developers are expected to be Tier II prior to contract start. This number will fluctuate depending on the instructor turnover rate.

Proposed PWS Note:

* Denotes present day Instructor Developers in training. The current (incumbent) Instructor Developers progressing in the training program must complete Tier 2 instructor requirements IAW sections 8.1, 8.2, 8.3. All (incumbent) Instructor Developers, currently in trianing, are expected to qualify as Tier 2 Instructor Developers on-schedule.

*** The number of Tier 1 and 2 Instructor Developers fluctuates. All new hires/ are considered Tier 1 instructors until they meet Tier 2/3 requirements. (Returning instructor who meet Tier 2/3 requirements are grandfathered in)

The Governments intent is for the offeror to understand new hires under this PWS are not limited to Tier 2 Instructor Developers; Tier 1 Instructor Developers are acceptable given the Instructor Developer is otherwise qualified AND the Tier 1 Instructor Developers are expected to progress to Tier 2 Instructor Developers within the guidelines provided in sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3.

Pricing is left to the offeror IAW with the pricing spreadsheet provided.

4 Contract Small Business Size Standard 39th Information Operations Squadron Hurlburt Field, Florida 39th Information Operations Squadron, Detachment 1 Joint Base San Antonio, Texas Overall Question: With the size and complexity of this effort, has the government thought about making this a Small Business effort and not an 8a set-aside? You are asking for the Prime contractor to have 2 past performance that relates to this work. Other than the incumbent, it will be difficult to find other 8a companies that can meet that threshold. Under a Small Business effort, you will have a more competitive field of companies that can meet the requirements.

The Government conducted Market Research and a two different Request for Information via FBO. The Government is satisfied that the Market is able to provide sufficient 8(a) offerors to make this contract effort fully competitive.

1 Travel Estimates PWS 2.6 Travel Requirements Will we be receiving projected base and/or option year CONUS and OCONUS travel locations with the final solicitation? Travel estimates, based on previous 4 years are approximately 20 trips CONUS per year; travel locations include, but are not limited to: San Antonio TX, Montgomery Al, Bellville IL, Colorado Springs CO, Little Rock AR.

In previous years an OCONUS option did not exist. OCONUS travel is limited and on a case by case basis. Current projections may include Europe and the Pacific.

The Government feels that the documents provided in the Reading Room Library are sufficient for the qualified offerors to make an informed decision and proposal, and will foster fair and equitable competition.

The Government does not expect a team member to act solely as the site PM or Alt PM

Yes, due to mission requirements, the Government maintains the right of refusal if the resume does not present the minimum requirements (education, experience, and security) to qualify for the work as defined in the PWS.

6 IA/RMF PWS Paragraph 3.2.5 Is 39th IOS or another entity responsible for performing vulnerability scans, ATOs, TCNOs, TCTOs, etc, and making this information available to contract Information Assurance (IA)/Cybersecurity/ Risk Management Framework (RMF) personnel for monitoring and other uses? The 39 IOS as well as other entities are responsible for the Cybersecurity (Information Assurance) functions however, vulnerability scans and TCNO's are only done at the unit level on special occasions. Applicable information will be made available as needed to contract personnel as required.

The Government requirement is for the professional assessment and analysis of the documents associated with a Training Systems Requirements Analysis (TSRA) initiated by the Government. Contractors may be requested to participate in the TSRA process, but not to unilaterally conduct the TSRA.

Typically, the TSRA documents are updated or evaluated annually for each course of instruction, or as directed by the Major Command.

There is no paragraph 3.3.4. There is no mention of ITIL in the PWS.

13 Clearance PWS Paragraph 7.1.1.3 Paragraph 7.1.1.3 states, ‘On contract start date, a minimum of 95% of contractor personnel working within Hurlburt Field Building 90074 and JBSA Buildings 178/179, 2000, and 2008 shall have a Top Secret (TS)/Special Compartmented Information (SCI) clearance and be ICD 704 eligible with a current SSBI.’ Since contractor personnel are only granted SCI when filling an authorized SCI billet, please confirm that personnel only need to be SCI eligible at proposal submission. Confirmed.

The Government is responsible for SCI. Contract employees need only have the SCI eligibility to qualify.

14 Manpower PWS Paragraph 8.1 Appendix A: Historical Information. Under Information Assurance: Did the Government mean to “zero out” the Information Assurance manpower requirement? Especially in light of the Oct 2016, DFARS Clause 7012 requirements for Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. At this time, yes. This is a capability that the Government may implement at a future date, however, will not be a day-1 requirement.

Request offerors price out this capability per base and option years.

Our requirement is to teach Air Force Specific Cyber Weapon systems. Should the offeror have other than AF specific qualifications, I think they deserve partial credit, but not full credit.

The processes are Air Force Cyber Weapon Systems ... they are not specific to the contract or incumbent contractor.

The Governments requirement is to teach Air Force Specific Cyber Weapon Systems for Combatant Commands.

The Air Force Cyber Weapon Systems have unique configurations, tactics, techniques, procedures, and processes for US Cyber Command and AFCYBER Operations. These operations are accomplished in, on and through the Cyberspace Domain.

Also, there is no favoritism implied or expected.

There are more than the incumbent contractor with AF Specific Cyber Weapon Systems experience.