ICPS_RFP_Questions_Responses_30Aug18.pdf

Solicitation FA8773-18-R-8008

Integrated Cyber Protection Systems (ICPS)

Questions for Clarification

****Proposal due date has been updated to 3:00PM CST, 13 Sep 2018*****

1. Section L, 2.2.8- states that Offerors will return the completed DD Form 254, “along with evidence that: Each position identified in Offerors proposal, to fulfill the requirements of this effort has a final TOP SECRET or SECRET personal security clearance; some positions must be eligible for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information in accordance with Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 704 and Intelligence Community Policy Guidance (ICPG) 704.2., along with their offers.” Can the Government please confirm acceptable forms of evidence Offerors must present at proposal submission?

Response: Section L, 2.2.8 has been updated as follows: “To be considered for contract award, a qualified Offeror must have an Active TOP SECRET Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission.”

This information has been removed from Section L, 2.2.8: “Each position identified in Offerors proposal, to fulfill the requirements of this effort has a final TOP SECRET or SECRET personal security clearance; some positions must be eligible for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information in accordance with Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 704 and Intelligence Community Policy Guidance (ICPG) 704.2., along with their offers.”

This information has also been removed from Section L, 2.2.8: ” If TOP SECRET Facility Clearance hasn’t been completed by the time of proposal submittal, the Offeror must show evidence of submission of a TOP SECRET Facility Clearance request to the Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) and if affected by the Government Delay of the Transfer to the National Industrial Security System (NISS) should submit appropriate Facility Clearance (FCL) as soon as the request has been approved by DSS.”

2. Section L, 2.2.8- What is considered sufficient evidence to show we have submitted a TS FC request to Defense Security Service (DSS)?

Response: Section L, 2.2.8 has been updated as follows: “To be considered for award, a qualified Offeror must have an Active TOP SECRET Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission.”

3. Section L, 2.3.1 Table 1 – Proposal Organization

Section L, 2.3.1, Table 1-Volume I is identified as Present/Past Performance Information and Volume II is identified as Technical. Section L, 3.0 identifies Factor 1 as Technical Volume I and Paragraph 4.0 Factor 2 Past Performance as Volume II. Can the Government clarify which Proposal volume is I and II?

Response: Section L, Paragraph 2.3.1 has been updated to state Technical- Vol I and Past Performance –Vol II.

4. Section L, 2.3.1, Table 1-This paragraph directs that “Present/Past Performance Information” be Volume 1 of the proposal, and “Technical” be Volume II. But the remainder of the document has these reversed, which is typical for most proposals we’ve produced. Are we to assume paragraph 2.3.1 is the error?

Response: See response to Question #3 above.

5. Section L, 2.3.1, Table 1-Table 1 on page 3 lists Past Performance as Volume I and Technical as Volume II. On page5, 3.0 has Technical as Volume I and page 6, 4.0 has Past Performance as Volume II. Please clarify which is correct?

Response: See response to Question #3 above.

6. Section L, 2.3.1-Can the Government please confirm if Volume I is Present/Past Performance or Technical? Section L, 2.3.1, Table 1, addresses Volume I as Present/Past Performance, however, later in section 3.0, Volume I is listed as Technical.

Response: See response to Question #3 above.

7. Section L, 2.3.1, Table 1 lists Present/Past Performance Information as Volume. However, on page 5, Section 3.0 Factor 1, Technical is referred to as Volume I? May the Government please confirm how the volumes should be identified?

Response: See response to Question #3 above.

8. Section L, 2.3.1, Table 1, Proposal Organization” (within binders): “Does this mean that both copies of the proposal are to be broken up into four separate binders (one per Volume), which means that the Government expects to receive a total of eight (8) 2-inch binders?

Response: Section L, 2.3.1, Table 1 has been updated to state “Offerors should submit a total of 8 binders. Each binder should include one (1) Volume. Two total copies: Original & Copy 1.”

9. The table “PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION” (within binders)…” Does this mean that both copies of the proposal are to be broken up into four separate binders (one per volume), which means that the Government expects to receive a total of eight 2” binders?

Response: See response to Question #8 above.

10. Section L, 2.3.1- Table 1 Proposal Organization on page 3 indicates 2 copies for each volume and Table 2-Binder Organization indicates Original and Copy 1 of Binders will contain complete proposal package. Please clarify if it is 2 binders for each volume or 2 binders that contain all 4 volumes (Original and Copy 1).

11. Section L, 2.3.1-There is a discrepancy in Section L-on the instructions to Offerors. On page 3 under Table 1-Proposal Organization it states that Volume I is the Present/Past Performance Information but on page 6 it states Past Performance is Volume II. Vice versa with Volume I as Technical. What is the correct proposal structure?

12. Section L, 2.3.1, Table 2-Binder Organization (with binders) and 2.3.6, Binding and Labeling: It appears in Table 2 that Offerors are supposed to provide two (2) binders, each of which many not exceed 2” and must contain all four volume sections. However, Section 2.3.3 specifies pricing information may not be included in the Technical and Past Performance Volumes under any circumstances, and in section 2.3.6, the instructions appear to indicate each Volume should be separate and labeled as Original or Copy 1.

a. Are Offerors to provide 8 binders (1 original and 1 copy of each volume) or 2 binders (with each volume separated by tabs)?

b. If Offerors are to provide 2 binders with each volume separated by tabs, is there any protective measure that must be taken to ensure the pricing information is not opened by Technical or Past Performance evaluators>

c. Ref: Electronic files, is each Volume to be saved as a separate file?

Response: See responses to Question #8 and #18.

13. Section L, 2.3.4, Technical Volume Page limitations – Are Table of Contents, Glossary and Cross Reference Matrix excluded from the 50-page limitation?

Response: Section L, 2.3.4 has been updated to state, “Table of Contents, Glossary, and Cross Reference Matrix pages will not be included in the overall Technical Volume page limit of 50 pages.”

14. Section L, 2.3.1 and 2.3.4, Cross-Referencing: Please confirm the Cross-Reference Matrix is excluded from the page count.

Response: See response to Question #13 above.

15. Section L, 2.3.7: Please clarify whether electronic offers are to be submitted via email or Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) (“The Offeror shall submit proposal volumes I, II, III, & IV via email in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2010, MS Office Excel 2010, and MS Office Power Point 2010, as applicable. The proposal shall be submitted on the Safe Access File Exchange via https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe with amy.barnes.2@us.af.mil as the recipient.”)

Response: Reference Section L, 2.3.7: The proposal shall be submitted on the Safe Access File exchange via https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe with amy.barnes.2@us.af.mil as the recipient.

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe mailto:amy.barnes.2@us.af.mil mailto:amy.barnes.2@us.af.mil

16. Section L, 2.3.7: Are hard copies of the proposal required?

Response: Yes. Reference Section L, 2.3.1 and 2.4.1.

17. Section L, 2.4.1, Delivery – Proposal instructions state appointments must be made to deliver hard copies of the proposal. Are Offerors allowed to ship hard copies of the proposal to the address identified in the RFP or will had deliveries only be accepted? If shipment is allowed, does the Government accept FedEx, UPS, Postal deliveries?

Response: Section L, 2.4.1 updated to state: “If mailing proposal, please use the above address. FedEx shipment is preferred. All proposal deadlines apply to the mailed proposal.”

18. Section L, 2.4.1, “The Offeror shall submit one electronic copy via ARMDEC with each hard copy volume.” Does this mean that the Government expects (a) the electronic volumes broken into four separate files, one each per volume, or (b) does the Government expect the electronic proposal as a whole to be submitted twice?

Response: Section L, 2.3.7 has been updated to state: “Each Volume should be saved as a separate file.”

19. Section L, Paragraph 2.4.1- “The Offeror shall submit one electronic copy via AMRDEC with each hard copy volume.” Does this mean that the government expects (a) the electronic volumes broken into four separate files-one each per volume, or (b) does the government expect the electronic proposal as a whole to be submitted twice?

Response: See response to Question #18 above.

20. Section L, 2.4.1: May the Government please clarify if an appointment is necessary if proposals will be delivered via courier (FedEx) or if an appointment for delivery is only necessary if the vendor is sending an individual to physically hand-deliver the proposal package?

Response: Section L, 2.4.1: An appointment is only necessary if an individual is hand-delivering the proposal package.

21. Section L, 2.4.1- the proposal due date is established as 20 August 2018, however on FBO, the website shows the proposal due date has been extended from this date to September 20, 2018.

Can the government clarify which due date is correct?

Response: The proposal due date has been updated to 13 Sep 2018, 3PM CST.

22. Section L, 2.4.1- May the due date be extended so that we may review and respond to the answers to questions?

Response: See response to Question #21 above.

23. Seciton L, 2.4.2 has been updated to state the following: Offerors are encouraged to submit Volume II (Past Performance), as early as 01 Aug 2018 but not later than 13 Sep 2018.

Please contact the Contracting Officer to arrange for early delivery. Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in Offeror disqualification.

24. Section L, 3.1.2, Scenarios 1 & 2: Reference Section L, 3.1.2, Scenarios 1 and 2. Both scenarios collectively include all performance requirements as laid out in section 3 of the PWS with the exception of PWS 3.4.7 and PWS 3.4.8. Was this an intentional omission or should those performance requirements (3.4.7 and 3.4.8) be factored in when responded to one or both of the scenarios?

Response: Yes, intentional.

25. Section L, 3.1.2, Subfactors 1 and 2, the solicitation lists the various PWS requirements as they apply to each subfactor, however, PWS requirements 3.4.7, and 3.4.8 are not among them.

As we understand Section L to be the scope of the proposal response, and as an Offeror, we are concerned about conserving page count to only include areas that are valuable in assisting the government in its evaluation; can the government clarify if these two sections are desired within our technical proposal response? If so, how should they map to the Subfactors?

Response: Section L, 3.1.2-PWS Sections 3.4.7 and 3.4.8 do not have to be referenced within the response to each scenario. The referenced PWS requirements should be addressed within each response.

26. Section L, Attachment 1, Cross Reference Matrix- We understand we are to fill out the Cross Reference Matrix indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the PWS, Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN), and CDRL references found therein and our corresponding proposal paragraph. Given the scenario responses only encompass section 3 of the PWS, will Offerors also be required to indicate all other sections of the PWS outside of section 3 (i.e. PWS Sections 2, 6, etc)?

Response: All sections of the PWS should be addressed.

27. Section L, 3.1.2-Regarding Scenario 2. The Scenario states; "Approaches to generating the new capability are evaluated...". Can the Government identify who conducted the evaluations?

Are copies of the evaluations available to bidders? What is the contract status for the replacement IPS hardware/licensing?

Response: As a hypothetical scenario, the term “evaluated” is generically meant to identify your process of developing courses of action and determining the best solution. There is no specific “evaluator” in this scenario.

28. Section L, 4.1.1, Past Performance Volume Page limitations – Are Organizational Structure Change History and Consent/Client Authorization Letters excluded from the 30-page limitation?

Response: Section L, 4.1.1 has been updated to state, “Organizational Structure Change History and Consent/Client Authorization letters will not be included in the overall page limitation for Past Performance of 30 pages."

29. Section L, 4.1.1 – May the Government please confirm if Consent and Client Authorization Letters are excluded from the page count for the Past Performance Volume?

Response: See response to Question #27 above.

30. Section L, 5.0, Factor 3: Based on the Solicitation packet review, there was no reference to LCATS and LCAT Requirements. The concern is that various levels, i.e. Jr., Mid and Senior Levels may have different meanings. For example, a SR to one firm might mean anything from minimum of 8 years or 10 years, this could affect pricing.

To balance the pricing field, we kindly request the government consider providing contemplated LCATS, with a description and requirements or at a minimum provide guidance of what the government expects for requirements (years and Education).

For example:

Level Min Years Min Education

I 0 Bachelor’s

II 3 Bachelor’s

III 5 Bachelor’s

IV 8 Bachelor’s

V 10 Bachelor’s

SME 15 Masters

Response: Appendix 4, Knowledge Requirements has been added to the PWS to show knowledge requirements for each labor category.

31. Section L, 5.0, Factor 3: Does the Government have a set number of hours for 1 FTE for 1 working year?

Response: 1920 hours for 1 FTE

32. Section L, 5.0: Does the Government have a suggested escalation rate?

Response: The Government is looking for an industry standard escalation rate.

33. Section L, 5.1.4: SCA/CBA reference the Service Contract Act (SCA) as well as the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Please confirm/clarify whether there is an existing CBA for the proposed work and if so, provide a copy of the current agreement so Offerors can ensure compliance with the terms of the CBA. Similarly, if there is an applicable Wage Determination, please provide a copy to ensure consistency in proposal responses.

Response: Reference Section L, 5.1.4. If the contractor determines that there are job categories/skill levels considered to be subject to SCA, the wage determination to be used is for Texas, Bexar County. There is no Collective Bargaining Agreement.

34. Section L, 5.1.7.1 Professional Compensation Plan. Offerors are to instruct subcontractors/teaming partners/joint venture partners to submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits package proposed for their respective employees to the contracting Officer.

Are subcontractors to only submit the Professional Compensation Plan Section L ICPS Offeror Compensation Sheet or do they submit a full price proposal following the instructions in Section L 5.2 Volume III Organization?

Response: Per Section L, 5.1.7.1: The prime Offeror shall instruct its subcontractors to submit their total compensation plan directly to the contracting officer. Subcontractors should submit their full price proposal to the Prime Contractor.

35. Section L, 5.1.7.1: “The prime Offeror shall instruct its subcontractors to submit their total compensation plan directly to the contracting officer” but in 5.1.7.3 it states, “If the prime contractor has a teaming partner and elects to propose only one set of rates for the entire team, this must be stated in the Volume III narrative.” If the Offeror is proposing to submit only one set of rates, does the subcontractor need to submit the following: 5.1.7.1-professional employee compensation, 5.1.7.2-the total compensation plan, and Section L, Attachment 5-Offeror Compensation Spreadsheet directly to the Government?

Response: See response to Question #33 above.

36. Section L, 5.1.7.1- We assume that the team subcontractors submit their own Attachment 5 Compensation Spreadsheet with their submitted copy of their Total Compensation Plan. Please verify.

Response: See response to Question #33 above.

37. Section L, 5.1.7.1: Professional Employee Compensation. Is the requirement to provide a total compensation plan to the Government applicable to minor or major subcontractors?

Response: Per Section L, 5.1.7.1, “The prime Offeror shall instruct its subcontractors to submit their total compensation plan directly to the contracting officer.” This reference applies to all subcontractors major or minor.

38. Section L, 5.1.7.3: Request the Government provide its labor definitions/qualifications so that we may ensure compliance with the requirement at 5.1.7.3.

Response: Appendix 4 has been added to the PWS to state knowledge requirements for each labor category listed on Section J, Attachment 2, Pricing Table.

39. Section L, 5.1.7.3, Pricing Table regarding labor categories. “When completing the Pricing Table, if the Offeror’s labor category definitions do not directly correspond to the Government’s labor category definitions/qualifications, the Offeror may propose its alternative; however, the Offeror also must provide a cross-reference and explain the changes as an exception.”

Subparagraph a. in the same section also states, if an Offeror’s labor category nomenclature differs from the Government’s, the Offeror must provide a cross-reference in support of meeting the Government’s minimum labor qualification for that specific category, i.e. describe qualification for the skill level applicable to the labor category in terms of education level, experience and typical skills/capabilities/job functions.

Will the Government clarify that they will be posting labor descriptions and qualifications of personnel needed to support this contract?

Response: Appendix 4 has been added to the PWS to state knowledge requirements for each labor category listed on Section J, Attachment 2, Pricing Table.

40. Section L, 5.1.7.3.a- provides instructions regarding the preparation of the proposed labor rates and includes the following language: “If an Offeror’s labor category nomenclature differs from the Governments, the Offeror must provide a cross-reference in support of meeting the Government’s minimum labor qualification for that specific category, i.e. describe qualification for skill level applicable to the labor category in terms of education level, experience and typical skills/capabilities/job functions.” In order to be compliant with the solicitation requirements, please provide a copy of the Government’s minimum labor qualifications for the labor categories listed in the Attachment 2 Pricing Table.

Response: See response to Question #38 above.

41. Section L, 5.1.7.3: In order to be compliant with this section, please provide a copy of the Government’s minimum qualifications for the labor categories listed in Section J, Attachment 2, Pricing Table.

42. Section L, 5.1.7.3 & Section J, Attachment 2: Pricing Table-The government stated: If an Offeror’s labor category nomenclature differs from the Government’s, the Offeror must provide a cross-reference in support of meeting the Government’s minimum labor qualification for that specific category, i.e. describe qualification for the skill level applicable to the labor category in terms of education level, experience and typical skills/capabilities/job functions.

43. Section L, 5.1.7.3 & Section J, Attachment 2: Pricing Table- We note that Section J, Attachment 2 specifies labor categories for the FFP and CPFF CLINs, but there are no instructions to map the labor categories to PWS sections. Would the Government please provide instructions or rationale for mapping the labor categories to the PWS sections (required for the cross-reference matrix within the Technical Volume)?

44. Section L, 5.1.7.3-“If the Offerors labor category definitions to not directly correspond to the Governments labor category definitions/qualifications…and 5.1.7.3.a, Offerors are instructed to “provide a cross-reference in support of meeting the Governments minimum labor category in terms of education level, experience and typical skills/capabilities/job functions.”

We respectfully request the Government provide its labor definitions/qualifications so that we may ensure compliance with this requirement.

45. Section L, 5.1.7.3 & Section J Attachment 2 - Pricing Table: The government has provided 2 tabs that are left blank. Can the government provide instructions on how they want data presented on these tabs?

Response: Section L, 5.1.7.3 states: “The contractor may elect to add additional tabs for labor rates or other calculations but must tie them back to the CLIN and Summary tabs.”

46. Section L, 5.2, Section 4: Are the estimates for Travel, Material, and OCR included in the Affordability Cap referenced in Section M, E. Factor 3?

Response: Section M, E, 4. e. has been updated to state: “The Affordability Cap of $25.3M does not include the totals for Travel, Material, and OCR referenced in Section L, 5.2.”

47. Section L, 5.2, Section 4: Please confirm the Government’s estimates for Travel, Material, and OCR are the total amounts which will be allocated amongst the various periods of performance (transition/base, option 1,2,3,4).

Response: Reference Section L, 5.2, Section 4. “Government total contract estimate for Travel, Material, and OCR are listed below.”

48. Section L, 6.1, Section I: Contract clauses states to submit RFP Section I pages for only clauses which require Offerors fill-ins. Please clarify which areas the Offeror should fill-in. If the Offeror is not required to fill-in any areas, can we exclude this requirement from our proposal?

Response: Section L, 6.1, Section I has been updated to state, “Do not include. This section is not modifiable by the Offeror.”

49. Section L, 6.1, Section J Attachments states to include completed DD254. Can the Government please provide an editable version of the DD254? The current version provided is locked.

Response: Section L, 6.1, Section J: An unlocked version of the DD254 has been uploaded to FBO.

50. Section L, Attachment 2, PPI Questionnaire, referring to the NOTE that states “The following are SAMPLE questions. Past Performance evaluation teams MUST construct a simple and concise Past Performance Questionnaire, tailored to seek out key information ties to the significant aspects of the planned acquisition.”

Response: Section L, Attachment 2, PPI Questionnaire: The NOTE referenced above has been removed.

51. Section L, Attachment 2, PPI Questionnaire-dashed text box section that begins “Note: The following are SAMPLE questions. Past Performance evaluation teams MUST construct simple and concise Past Performance Questionnaire, tailored to seek out key information tied to the significant aspects of the planned acquisition.” This dash box appears to be template instructions to the government author who creates the questionnaire. Our assessment is this box was inadvertently left on and should have been removed prior to posting. Is this correct?

Response: See response to Question #49 above.

52. Section L, Attachment 2, PPI Questionnaire- Should we ignore the note above the table?

Response: See response to Question #49 above.

53. Section L, 6.1 & Section J, Attachment 2, Pricing Table: This section also states to include the Pricing Table. Can the Government please clarify if we should include the Pricing Table in both volumes-Volume III: Cost and Volume IV: Contract Documentation?

Response: Section L, 6.1, Section J: Updated to state “(Pricing Table is submitted in Volume III).”

54. Section L, Attachment 1, Cross Reference Matrix: We understand we are to fill out the Cross Reference Matrix (Section L, Attachment 1) indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the PWS, Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN), and CDRL references found therein and our corresponding proposal paragraph. Given the scenario responses only encompass section 3 of the PWS, will Offerors also be required to indicate all other sections of the PWS outside of section 3 (i.e. PWS sections 2, 6, etc.)?

Response: Yes, the Cross Reference Matrix is a separate task from the scenarios responses.

55. Section J, Attachment 2 - Pricing Table: Within tab X001 - Labor FFP and Tab X002 - Labor CPFF, the government provides historical FTE numbers. The government also indicates 4 "other" as potential LCATs. We would like to know the following: (i) are there "other" LCATs that we need to account for when pricing this work? And (ii). Can the government provide us a historical FTE number for each one of the 4 listed "other" LCATs?

Response: The “other” LCATs are included so that the contractor may add labor categories different from what the Government has included.

56. Section J, Attachment 2, ICPS Pricing Table & Section L, 5.2, Cost/Price Volume Organization, Section 4, and the PWS. We note that Section J, Attachment 2 specifies labor categories for the FFP and CPFF CLINs, but there are no instructions to map the labor categories to PWS Sections. Would the Government please provide instructions or rationale for mapping labor categories to the PWS sections (required for the cross reference matrix within the Technical Volume?

Response: See response to Question #39 above.

57. Section M, Attachment 1, Past Performance Relevancy Matrix – Paragraph E in the relevancy matrix states “Expertise, as verified through past experience, in creating/enhancing hardware, software, and user interfaces for the AF’s Information Operations Platform (IOP) or other similar cyber defense systems.” This seems a bit restrictive if the experience must pertain to AF systems. Will the Government consider other IOPs and not AF only?

Response: Section M, Attachment 1, Relevancy Assessment Matrix: Experience in “other similar cyber defense systems” is acceptable.

58. Can the Government tell us the current OPS specification?

Response: ICPS is not an ops effort, therefore it is not applicable to this effort.

59. Please provide us with the ICPS Network Topology diagrams; Security policies, standards, and procedures.

Response: All information can be obtained from the RFP package and the Reading Room Library.

60. Is security incident handled from an enterprise security operations center (SOC) or is it handled by a local office?

Response: This question does not relate to the ICPS effort.

61. Please describe how the help desk ticket is resolved with its reporting procedure.

Response: Tickets are prioritized across the support team and worked by assigned individual(s) until completed. Tickets are managed by support team using an organically developed ticketing system.

62. How many security incidents and helpdesk tickets are reported in each month?

Response: Approximately 150 trouble tickets/quarter.

63. Please describe the security incident ticket escalation procedures with the DISA enterprise network operations.

Response: This question does not relate to the ICPS effort.

64. Please describe the security demarcation between the ICPS and the DISA networks.

Response: This question does not relate to the ICPS effort.

65. Does DISA manage all network and security related tasks? Please describe what services are provided by DISA and what services are managed by the local ICPS operations.

Response: This question does not relate to the ICPS effort.

66. How many security operations, helpdesk, system engineering staff are supporting the current ICPS environments?

Response: 22 FTEs

67. Please list the current security tools used in ICPS.

Response: Tools identified in the PWS and contained in the Reading Library documents.

68. Please describe how the perimeter protection is configured with security controls such as IDS/IPS/FW and others.

Response: The ICPS effort provides IDS/IPS/FW capabilities/systems to the operational community. It is the operational community that determines how the perimeter protection is configured. That decision is not the responsibility of the ICPS effort.

69. Please describe remote access capabilities for ICPS and how remote users access the ICPS internal applications and data.

Response: Remote access is conducted through the use of virtual private networks (VPNs).

70. Please describe the type of firewall applications being used such as application proxy, stateful inspection, MAC filtering firewalls.

Response: All information can be obtained from the RFP package and the Reading Room Library.

71. Please describe how the ICPS manage the digital certificates and support how many users.

Response: Digital certificates are managed by the operational community.

72. What is the total number of customers supported by the contract, including military, government employees, contractors, and industry partners?

Response: We support systems at 25 fixed locations and approximately 35 short-term locations.

73. Please describe the SOC operations with its staffing model for 24x7 coverage. Does ICPS provide a 24x7 SOC/NOC/help desk operation?

Response: The ICPS effort does not conduct SOC operations, but provides 8AM to 5PM Monday – Friday tier III help desk support.

74. What kind ITSM ticketing application is being used for the enterprise NOC/SOC/help desk?

Response: Tickets are managed by support team using an organically developed ticketing system.

75. How many remote sites or offices are interconnected for the ICPS operations? How many users are in each site/office?

Response: ICPS development are conducted in San Antonio, TX. No remote sites are interconnected. 22 FTEs, 7 Govt employees.

76. What kind AF ICPS business applications are being used on premise and in the cloud?

Response: All information can be obtained from the RFP package and the Reading Room Library.

77. Describe the current cyber defense system hardware and software operational on site.

Response: This information was contained in the Reading Library documents.

78. Describe the ICPS mobile security policy and deployment strategy

Response: This question does not relate to the ICPS effort.

79. Describe how the ICPS web applications are protected and managed by DISA/ICPS local security administrators.

Response: All information can be obtained from the RFP package and the Reading Room Library.

80. How many support staff are on the current contract, providing SOC/NOC/service desk/engineering effort?

Response: 22 FTEs providing service desk/engineering.

81. Please describe the current network defense tools in place to protect the ICPS environment.

Response: All information can be obtained from the RFP package and the Reading Room Library.

82. Please describe the current IDS/IPS/FW products, capabilities and configurations.

Response: All information can be obtained from the RFP package and the Reading Room Library.

83. PWS 3.2.2- Is the intent to deploy sensitive signatures on the CloudShield from a higher level network than what it is monitoring and upon signature detection provide a means to alert the operator that further investigation must be done at the higher level and additionally provide the appropriate references and sensitivity appropriate data to do so?

Response: This would be a viable solution. It is possible to have more than solution to perform this task.

84. Is there some type of cross-domain solution already available to facilitate this or will this task need to be completed by using air gaps?

Response: A cross-domain solution is available.

85. Is the intent to automatically present to the operators the reports/databases available on the higher classification networks?

Response: Information will be provided using a higher classification network.

86. With regards to the current system, does 90th COS have existing cross domain data transfer?

Response: We are currently working the A&A process to achieve this capability.

87. Has 90 COS submitted a Program Objective Memorandum and received approval for funds to support IOP Hardware and Software upgrades as needed to be in full support?

Response: Funding for ICPS will be available at time of contract award.

88. PWS 2.5.2.4: Because the contractor will be innovating and implementing capabilities for cyber operators, contractor shall provide a DoD 8570.01M, Information Assurance – Technical (IAT) Level III certified employee as lead for each of the functional areas: Quality Assurance, Technical Support, Systems Engineering, and Development. Newly assigned personnel assuming the functional lead positions shall complete their certification requirements within six months of assignment to the position:

Q: Does the six month requirement extend through the life of the contract, or does this six month window end six month into the POP?

Response: Requirement extends through the life of the contract.

89. PWS 6.2.1: On contract start date, a minimum of 90% of individuals working shall have a TS/SCI clearance and be Director of Central Intelligence Directives (DCID) 6/4 eligible with a current Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI); the remaining personnel must hold a minimum of a Secret clearance

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO) pending the completion of an SSBI investigation and must work expeditiously to obtain their TS/SCI clearance within 90 days of contract award:

During the life of the contract, are we allowed to hire personnel with a Secret clearance as long as we stay below the 90% minimum TS/SCI requirement?

Response: No. Intent is that 90% of individuals working at contract start will have TS/SCI clearance, as workplace requires TS/SCI cleared personnel.

90. What gaps exist between the current SIEM solution and the abilities of the watch standers to execute a decision based on perceived courses of action?

Response: Not applicable. This is a question for the operational community.

91. Can we assume that the required RMF controls for SIEM are applied to the current solution?

Response: Yes.

92. What are the current operating parameters for ArcSight, as used today? Any customization of COTS in current network?

Response: Not applicable. Operating parameters and customization for ArcSight is accomplished by the operational community.

93. Does the current architecture support defense-in-depth WRT networking topology?

Response: ICPS provides components to support operational defense-in-depth.

94. What are the current mission areas for focused development of a cyber decision aid? Does the solution need to focus on specific mission impacts, or generic cyber threats?

Response: This question was not clear to the Government, but appears to not apply to the ICPS effort.

95. Is this a different requirement than the correlated SIEM data from the IDS/IPS? A different dashboard?

Response: This question was not clear to the Government, but appears to not apply to the ICPS effort.

96. Will all deployments be handled as OCR´s? See attachment PWS Attachment 2, Small Example.

Response: No. Reference PWS 2.8.

97. PWS 2.6: If the contractor’s holidays don’t align with the Federal holiday schedule, the contractor must provide their personnel an alternate work location. The SCIF will be closed on Federal holidays.

Does the alternate work location have to be a facility, or can personnel’s home of residence be considered alternate work location? In the event personnel are working at an alternate work location, would the customer be able to provide some type of laptop to check out, or would the contractors company need to provide?

Response: It is up to the contractor to decide how they handle Alternate work locations and would need to provide any equipment necessary.

98. Will this contract require travel (i.e., TDYs)? If so, how much on average?

Response: Reference PWS 2.8.

99. What are the clearances required for each position (Secret/Top Secret/SCI/SAP-SAR)?

Response: Reference PWS 6.2.1.

100. Can the government provide the name of current incumbents?

Response: STS Systems Integration, LLC

101. Can the government provide the total contract value for the current work?

Response: $14.1M

102. Can the government provide us with the number of full time FTEs currently performing on this contract?

Response: 22 FTEs.

103. Is the Pricing table a complete FTE count of current work?

Response: The Pricing Table shows what is needed to perform the work on ICPS.

104. Is there a standard labor hour count per FTE to use?

Response: Standard labor hours per year is 1920 per FTE.

105. Will all deployments be handled as OCR´s? See attachment PWS Attachment 2, Small Example.

Response: No, reference PWS 2.8.

106. What is the scope of support (the AFNet/AFIN, functional systems, etc.)?

Response: Support will be for the ACD, CVA/H, and other Cyber Weapon systems as required.

107. What role(s) will contractors be filling (RMF assessors, ISSMs/ISSOs, Network Engineers, System Admin, Tech Writers, Equipment Custodian, etc.)?

Response: Section J, Attachment 2, Pricing Table, includes a list of sample labor categories for the contractor to use or to add to.

108. What are the IT certification requirements for each position, IAW DoDD 8140.01 and DoDD 8570.01-M (IAT/IAM)?

Response: PWS 2.5.2.4 - Because the contractor will be innovating and implementing capabilities for cyber operators, contractor shall provide a DoD 8570.01M, Information Assurance – Technical (IAT) Level III certified employee as lead for each of the functional areas: Quality Assurance, Technical Support, Systems Engineering, and Development.

Newly assigned personnel assuming the functional lead positions shall complete their certification requirements within six months of assignment to the position.

109. Will RMF duties include DIACAP to RMF transition or have all packages been converted to RMF already?

Response: All packages are currently being converted at this time. May require some DIACAP duties to complete transition to RMF if not completed by contract award.

110. Will specialty training be required (e.g., Fidelis, McAfee Remediation Manager, Nessus, etc.)?

Response: Expect employees to be able to use those products (Fidelis, McAfee Remediation Manager, Nessus, etc).

111. Will this contract provide personnel for multiple locations or only at JBSA?

Response: All work will be accomplished at JBSA and TDY to other locations as required.