Govt Response to Industry Day and DRAFT RFP QAs 06Jun22.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Mission Planning Support Contract IV (MPSC IV)
- Solicitation number
- FA8217-22-R-0001
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
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
DRAFT RFP Q&A
| MPSC-IV - Draft RFP Q&A - 1/10/22 | ||||
| Document | Section | Page | Question/Comment | Govt. Response |
| Draft_RFP_Attachment_5_MPSCIV_SectionL_13Dec21 | Section 2.1.8 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits | 3 | According to the instructions regarding submission, "Additionally, the offeror shall prepare one (1) Master Proposal containing one hard copy of each volume identified above in Table 1. This Master Proposal shall be printed double-sided, flipped on the short end, two-hole punched centered on top of the page, and bound together, but not in a binder." |
We recommend that the government strike the language requiring a hard copy submission, since potential issues with shipping logistics due to COVID 19 may cause unforeseen delays in receipt of hardcopy submission.
| The Government requires hard copies of the proposal as defined in Section L Paragraph 2.1.8 including Table 1. The multiple hard copy documents are necessary to facilitate our proposal assessment team's ability to evaluate proposals in an efficient and collaborative manner. Reading documents in hard copy format provides quicker assess to various sections of Volume II (Technical) in particular, and reduces fatigue and eye strain associated with the extensive reading and evaluating of multiple 100 page volumes. The Government will consider removal of the hard copy requirement for the Price Volume, pending further discussion with the Price/Cost Team. While we understand the submission of electronic proposals may ease shipping concerns, we are confident offerors will find a way to ensure their proposals arrive on time, including the option of hand delivering them. With the Covid-19 situation, we do ask that each offeror coordinate with the PCO to ensure accommodations are made to receive each delivery. | ||
| Draft_RFP_Attachment_5_MPSCIV_SectionL_13Dec21 | Section 2.1.8 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits, Row 4 | |
| Section 5.2 Relevant Contracts | 4 and 10 | According to the table in Section 2.1.8, teams are limited to a MAX of 12 past performances total; additionally, according to Section 5.2, prime contractors are limited to a total of three (3) past performances with teaming partners and significant subcontracts allowed to submit up to three (3) past performances as long as it stays with the limit of 12. |
| This change would raise the maximum past performance limit from twelve (12) to fourteen (14), and will allow Offerors to better demonstrate how their aggregate corporate capability align with the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the work contemplated. | The Government does not see the clear benefit to changing the MAX contracts from 12 to 14; with the ability to provide contracts on teaming partners and significant subcontracts the ability to demonstrate aggregate corporate capability exists. Additionally, as addressed in the comment below, the Government may consider past performance in the aggregate but is not required to do so. The Government is open to considering changing the limit to 14; pending further discussion with our Acquisition Center of Excellence and feedback resulting from Industry Day if we determine the feedback indicates a clear benefit to changing the number. Additionally, the question/comment is unclear as to why 2 extra submissions will allow offerors to better demonstrate capabilities or if those additional 2 submissions should only apply to the prime offeror. | |||
| Draft_RFP_Attachment_6_MPSCIV_SectionM_13Dec21 | Section 4.3 Evaluation Process | 7 | The RFP states under Section 4.3, Evaluation Criteria, "The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis." |
The government has also stated that past performance is the primary factor in the evaluation process. A majority of small business will only be able to show corporate experience of similar size, scope, and magnitude in aggregate.
In the interest of ensuring fair competition, and lessening the possibility of a post-award protest, we respectfully recommend that the Government modify this criteria to read:
"The Government will consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis."
| The Government will not change the wording to will ; as stated the Government may consider it in aggregate but it not required to do so. The evaluation criteria provides for the ability to submit past performance for teaming partners and significant subcontractors which are evaluated IAW the criteria established in Section L and M; contributing to an offerors ability to show performance of similar size, scope and magnitude. | ||||
| Draft RFP | ||||
| Sections M.3.4.2 and L.4.5.2 | Section M.3.4.2 states, "The offeror must include a proposed approach for “building” MPEs that will be taken by the unit during the deployment, updating systems while they are deployed (to include the use of organic government personnel or the offeror’s personnel, if authorized by the government), and how the unit can begin getting user support for mission planning within two (2) hours of initial contact, if the SSR is not deployed with the unit IAW PWS 2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.3, 2.3.1.3.13." | |||
| However, section L.4.5.2 states, "The offeror shall include a proposed approach for “building” MPEs that will be transported with/for units during deployments, up-dating systems while they are deployed (to include the use of organic government personnel or the offeror’s personnel, if authorized by the government), and how the unit can receive user support for mission planning system utilization within two (2) hours of initial contact, if the SSR is not deployed with the unit IAW PWS 2.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.4, 2.4.1.3.13." | Would the government clarify which PWS sections we are to address when discussing the referenced proposed approach? | The Government will take the action to re-verify which PWS sections are to be addressed in each subfactor contained in Section L and M. At the time of final RFP release, you must address all PWS sections as they are listed in each factor/subfactor. Every attempt will be made to ensure the referred PWS sections match between Section L and M, with a note that the Government will be using Section M for evaluation purposes. | ||
| Draft RFP | ||||
| Sections M.3.3.1 and L.4.4.1 | Sections M.3.3.1 and L.4.4.1, when discussing the requirement for providing MPC training to users, developers, testers, and program managers, reference PWS paragraph 2.12.4. However, there is no such paragraph in the draft PWS. | When discussing the requirement for providing MPC training to users, developers, testers, and program managers, are offerors required to reference PWS paragraph 2.11.4? Would the government clarify which PWS section(s) we are to address when discussing the requirement for providing MPC training to users, developers, testers, and program managers? | The discrepancy is noted and the Government will clarify which PWS Sections will address MPC training and will provide the correct reference in the final RFP, and reserves the right to provide an updated PWS to Industry for additional RFI questions and comments prior to release if time allows. | |
| Draft RFP, Section L.2.1.11 and Attachment L-2 | Section L.2.1.11 states, "The government will fill out a portion of the Cross Reference Matrix and the offeror will fill out the remaining sections in Attachment L-2 of this ITO indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the ITO, PWS, CLIN numbers, and CDRL references found therein." | |||
| Attachment L-2, cell F5 says "3.2,1". | Should Attachment L-2, cell F5 instead say "3.2.1"? | Noted comma was replaced with a period, and now reads "3.2.1" | ||
| Draft RFP | ||||
| Section L.2.1.12 | Section L.2.1.12 states, "Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections." | Does the government require "tab indexing" only on tabbed dividers in the hard copies of the proposal? | Tabbed indexing is required on hard and soft copies. If for some reason you are not able to index your soft copies, please let us know and we will determine if the electronic and hyperlink instructions described in Section L Paragraph 2.1.15 and 2.1.15.2 will suffice for soft copies. | |
| Draft RFP | ||||
| Section L.4.4.2, Section M.3.3.2 | Section M.3.3.2 states, "The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach that demonstrates the offeror’s proposed plan to identify Mission Planning Environment (MPE) deficiencies and manage the process IAW T.O. 00-35D-54 (August 1, 2015) and PWS 2.4.1.1." | |||
| However, Section L.4.4.2 states, "The contractor shall demonstrate the Deficiency Investigation Process approach pertaining to the offeror’s proposed approach to identify Mission Planning Environment (MPE) deficiencies and manage the process IAW T.O. 00-35D-54 (August 1, 2015) (PWS 2.4.1.1.2)." | Would the government clarify which PWS paragraph(s) will be used to evaluate offerors' proposed approach to identifying MPE deficiencies and managing the process? | The correct reference is 2.4.1.1.2 which states "The contractor shall document all reported deficiency reports using a centrally accessible tool, currently recorded through the Enterprise Deficiency Reporting (EDR) tool on Mission Planning Central. Deficiency Reports (DRs) shall be reported to the appropriate mission planning community members IAW TO 00‐35D‐54." Section M will be updated accordingly, as is appears to be missing the final "2" | ||
| Draft PWS 2.2 - 2.12 |
Section L 2.0 Section M 3.2, Section M 3.3, Section M 3.4 Section L 2.0 and Sections M 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 state the offeror’s proposal must convey a technically sound approach that meets all the requirements in the PWS.
However, Section L 4.0, Volume II - Factor 1: Technical, L 4.2, Format and Specific Content, and Section L 4.3 - 4.5, Subfactors, are not inclusive of two PWS requirements:
- 2.2 Mission Planning End-user Support
- 2.6 Technical Publications Would the government clarify if Volume II, Technical, must address all PWS requirements in paras 2.2-2.12?
| Or must Volume II include only the subfactors outlined in Section L paragraphs 4.3, 4.3, and 4.5? | The language in Section M 3.2, 3.3. and 3.4 indicate the items (i.e. MPC Support, Deficiency Investigation, and Foreign Military Sales contained in 3.3) which are listed in the description correspond with PWS requirements. The word "all" requirements in the PWS does not appear. Section L 2.0 contains general instructions that the offeor is complaint with requirements in the PWS but does not indicate every PWS requirement must be fully described in the proposal. Further clarification is provided in Section L 4.1 that states "All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm/organization will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal." Therefore, the PWS references that must specifically be contained in the proposal are contained in Section L 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 and Section M 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. The two sections align with each other in as much as Technical subfactor include Program Management, MPSSF and SSRs. The Government will use Section M for evaluation purposes. | ||||
| Section M.3.4; Attachment L-2 | In column F of Attachment L-2 (Requirements Traceability Cross Reference Matrix Draft), the evaluation criteria for Section M.3.4 (Subfactor 3: System Support Representatives [SSRs]) is not listed. | Would the government clarify whether the evaluation criteria for Section M.3.4 will be included in Attachment L-2? | Yes, Attachment L-2 has been updated accordingly. | ||
| Section L.5.2 | Section L.5.2 states that “The offeror is requested to submit Past Performance Information on three recent contracts….” | Offerors (partners, teaming members, etc.) are requested to submit up to 3 past performance examples. Will submitting 1, or 2 contracts, instead of 3 contracts be less advantageous to the offeror’s evaluation compared to if it had submitted 3 contracts? | While the quality and not the necessarily the quantity of contracts submitted are evaluated, it is possible fewer contracts may impact the Government's ability to assess that it has Substantial Confidence or a high expectation an offeror can perform the work if relevant and recent performance data is less robust. An overall assessment is made based on a compilation of data comprised of provided contracts as well as information gathered from other sources available to the Government as described in Section M 4.3. Section M 4.7 further explains "Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In such cases, the offeror’s past performance is considered unknown and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral” for the Past Performance factor." | ||
| Section L.5.6 | Section L.5.6 states that “If this is a first time joint venture, each party is requested to provide the information required in Section L, paragraph 5.2, for past and present relevant contracts.” | What does the Government consider to be a “first time joint venture”? IE – if the member partners have previously formed Joint Ventures does the government consider them to be a first time joint venture if they have formed another JV specifically for this procurement but have a history of working together in Joint Venture agreements? | If you have previously formed a Joint Venture with your current member partner, we would not consider this a first time joint venture. However, upon reviewing the language in Section L 5.6 the requirement to provide recent and relevant performance data whether you have a previous arrangement or a first time one appears to be similar in that information on all partners is requested. If further clarification is requested, we will engage the Small Business office on this question and provide a response prior to final RFP release. | ||
| Section M.5.6 | Section M.5.6 states that “The Government will evaluate the offeror and all related entities (e.g. subcontractors, teaming partners, interdivisional orders, etc.) as to whether the offeror and all related entities possess a Government approved accounting system. As portions of the work issued under this contract will be other than fixed price, the offeror and all related entities that will be issued other than fixed price type work shall have Government approved accounting systems.” | Please confirm that if a JV member is only going to be issued ‘fixed price type work’ they do not need an approved accounting system given that the other JV member(s) issued ‘other than fixed price type work’ has an approved accounting system will meet the requirements of M 5.6 and L 6.8. | Yes, the requirements in Section M 5.6 and 6.8 only apply to members or subcontractors who are issued "other than fixed price work". A team member issued only "fixed price work" does not need Government approval of their accounting system. | ||
| PWS | 1.3 Supported Platforms | 4 | The government states “Currently, some of these platforms provide their own mission planning support (i.e. F-22 and F-35); these platforms are listed to allow for support should it be needed at any point during this contract. Additional platforms may be added at a later date.” Will the offeror be evaluated on their familiarity or ability to support these additional platforms as part of their proposal? | The offerors will not be evaluated on anything that is platform specific. All of the required subfactors and proposed plans may or may not be applicable to individual platforms. All PWS requirements are mandatory, so if at any point the F-22 or the F-35 were added to this contract, there would be an expectation to support them using standardized Mission Planning Enterprise processes, some of which are part of the evaluation criteria. | |
| PWS | 2.1.1.5 Security Requirements | 6 | The government states “All contractor personnel shall obtain current security clearances to the proper level(s).” Will the government annotate what clearance level each location and LCAT requires? | During the proposal and source selection process the Government will not annotate what clearance level each location requires. This information will be made available when the work/task order is issued for each MAJCOM once the contract has been awarded. Security clearances will vary depending upon the specific requirements of each unit/platform/mission. Clearance levels may range from Secret to TS/SCI. SAP access may also be required at specific locations. The offerors ability to obtain and maintain required security clearances for personnel and facilities IAW applicable DoD and USAF directives and instructions (including, but not limited to 5 CFR 732 and Executive Order 12968) as described in Section M 3.2.3 will be evaluated. Proposed prices for the two clearance levels Secret and TS/SCI are also required. | |
| PWS | 2.1.1.5 Security Requirements | 7 | The government states “Additionally, systems administration and training for multiple USAF airframes supporting intelligence users and trainers in both ACC/A2 and AMC/A2, which must be conducted in a sensitive compartmented facility (SCIF).” Will the government clarify that the government will provide the SCIF location and that it is not a contractor responsibility? | Yes, the SCIF(s) are Govt owned and operated and it is not a contractor responsibility. | |
| PWS | 2.2.1 Helpdesk Call capability | 7 | The government states “Mission Planning Users (even those in the field) will be able to call a toll-free number any day of the year.” Will the government clarify that this number will be provided by the government and if not, is this to be included as part of the offeror’s submission? | The existing help desk number will be used and is provided by the Government. The offeror is intended to use the existing number(s) that have been established and in use as the 24/7 hotline for Mission Planning users for more than 2 decades. However, the method for creating incident tickets regarding help desk calls as described in PWS 2.2.4 is not provided by the Government. | |
| PWS | 2.3.1.2 SSR Support Level | 8 | Due to the unique nature of this effort supporting all components of the USAF and other joint services, the SSR support level requirements can be impacted by the organization’s mission and directives. The Air Guard is very particular with it’s SSR requirements and tends to assign internal responsibilities along with those that the contracted SSR holds, which normally equates to an SSR providing “full support” when only “basic on-site support” is required for MPSC mission responsibilities. What is the government’s responsibility in adjudicating component and unit level requirements when it comes to SSR allocation (i.e., the components provide funding)? | The definition of "basic" and "full" support are contained in the PWS and correspond to support for MPE systems only vs MPE and Non-MPEs and not responsibilities assigned by the unit. The Government COR along with the MAJCOM representative/component is responsible for adjudicating any issues that arise in regard to work that is requested outside what is outlined in the contract/task order. The Government Team in conjunction with the MAJCOMs and MPSC IV contractor will issue a "Rules of Engagement" document that helps to manage unit expectations as to what they can and cannot expect their SSRs to do. | |
| PWS | 2.3.1.3, #9 Standard USAF SSR Tasks | 10 | The government states “The contractor shall support a secure digital data depot repository and transfer mechanism.” Can the government expand upon this requirement and define what the repository and transfer mechanism consist of? | The digital data depot solution will be provided by the Government. The SSRs responsibility as described in 2.3.1.3.9 is to use the provided repository and digital data transfer mechanism regarding media distribution. Offeror is expected to support the Government's efforts to migrate from physical media distribution to secure digital data transfer methods. The offeror is expected to provide technical expertise to support utilization of cloud computing/edge servers concepts and systems ensuring full regulatory compliance and cybersecurity sustainment. |
| PWS | 2.4.3 Cloud Computing SME | 13 | Can the government please clarify what Cloud platforms will be included as part of this effort (i.e., AWS, Azure, etc.) as this is important in defining the right skill sets for the cloud SME? | Initial efforts to support fielded software and digital data distribution utilize Cloud 1 which has AZURE and AWS options. Technical support (as part of the 24/7 help desk) is expected. General cloud certification, such as Cloud + is likely sufficient for maintaining the right capabilities for supporting the Cloud SME support tasks as defined in PWS 2.4.3 |
| PWS | 2.11 Mission Planning Central Description | 24 | Can the government please clarify where and how the MPC is being hosted? Previously the MPC was hosted in an offsite location and supported by a team of IT personnel. The government states “MPC is hosted within the DISA MilCloud utilizing Virtual Data Centers (VDCs)” but where is the actual location of the MPC? Does the government intend to continue using the DISA MilCloud or is there a plan for transition to a new environment? | MPC is currently hosted with DISA on MilCloud 1. The location of the MPC team is at Hill AFB with the MPSSF in Bldg. 1575. Previous efforts to migrate to MilCloud 2 were abandoned when MilCloud 2 was discontinued. Future efforts to migrate to alternative cloud based solutions are currently be explored. |
| PWS | 2.5.1 Configuration Management Tasks | 15 | Can the government please clarify this requirement as it does not seem to fit the scope of responsibility within this contract: “The contractor shall research fielded software and hardware incompatibility issues and establish baselines.” What software is the government referring to (i.e., operating system, business applications, MPE or Non-MPE systems)? Usually, MPE letters are generated by AFLCMC and incompatibility issues are handled at that level. | Yes, MPE letters are generated by AFLCMC and incompatibility issues are handled at that level. The CM team must be able to perform research and evaluation on the contents of the MPE letter and identify software, titles, CPINs etc., and all aspects of test and fielded software and provide feedback to ensure the right configuration is distributed. The CM team engages with AFLCMC regarding discrepancies. The Government will clarify this requirement and update the PWS accordingly. |
| PWS | 2.9.3 Information Systems Cybersecurity Tasks | 20 | Can the government please clarify this requirement “4. The contractor shall maintain the Certification and Accreditation (C&A) processes according to the Risk Management Framework (RMF) on Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service (eMASS), Information Technology Investment Portfolio System (ITIPS) and/or latest Government C&A reporting system(s).” Is this contract requiring that the contractor be responsible for the accreditation of all the systems supported by this effort? Since the MPC is hosted within the MilCloud, where is the line of responsibility between DISA and the contractor, supported components (AFRC, ACC, AMC, etc.)? Does this include both MPE and non-MPE systems as well? | For MPE systems, the Mission Planning Acquisition Program Office (PO) works the ATO and ATC. The offeror is not expected to function as ISSO or ISSM for those systems. Using organizations should review the SCTM for any tasks they are responsible for. However, the offeror' Software Security tasks will include the development of patch sets on a schedule defined by the PO. Vulnerability scores are reported monthly. |
For MPC, the offeror provides an ISSM and handles the accreditation for the development and operational systems. Use of cloud service providers, such as DISA, may address some security controls but the overall security posture of MPC remains the responsibility of the offeror.
Should the offeror desire any networks, connected or not, beyond SIPRnet or NIPRnet, they will be responsible for all accreditation and maintenance functions.
PWS 2.11.3 MPC Site Administration 27 Can the government please clarify this requirement “2. The MPC Administrators shall have a current Microsoft Certified Solutions Expert (MCSE) certification credential in SharePoint (or equivalent industry certification).” This certification has expired according to: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/learn/certifications/posts/mcsa-mcsd-mcse-certifications-retire-with-continued-investment-to-role-based-certifications. What does the government propose as a replacement certification? Yes, since the drafting of the PWS, the MCSE certification has expired, in favor of more specialized, role/task based certifications. An equivalent industry standard is also suitable, such as an industry recognized cloud certification along with a DoD 8140 Information Assurance System Architect and Engineer (IASAE) I or higher baseline certification. The PWS has already been updated to reflect this.
| PWS | 2.11.5.2 MPC Software Developers | 29 | Can the government please clarify this requirement “The Contractor shall provide one (1) MPC development Agile Release Team (ART) of seven (7) trained members.” Is the government stating this as an FTE requirement? There are only two skillsets listed but the language implies that there are additional ones that can be possessed. Can the government provide further clarification? | Yes, the Agile Development Process defines Agile Release Teams by the number of trained members, therefore we must state this as an FTE requirement. The ability to complete the software development tasks defined in PWS 2.11.5.2 are included in the evaluation of Technical Subfactor 2.The Agile (Software) Release Team is a collaborative team with Software development/Agile Software Development experience, and as such members generally have diversified technical skill sets. The Government requires a minimum of the two identified skillsets, but notes there is no maximum a team member may possess. |
| PWS | 5.0 Government Shared Property | 40 | Can the government please clarify this requirement “The Government will coordinate physical workspace to complete all tasks in the PWS through a transferrable lease for Bldg. 1575 on Hill AFB.” Is the government stating that the entire building will be transferred to the contractor? Are there any other tenants currently in the building? What operations and maintenance support will the contractor be required to support (i.e., facility O&M)? | The entire building will not be transferred, just the spaces in the current lease. The existing lease established for building 1575 during the MPSC III contract will be assumed by the offeror awarded the MPSC IV contract. Only the specific areas identified on the lease will be transferred. The current lease area includes multiple office/workspaces, a SIPR lab, storage near the loading bay, environmentally controlled storage areas and equipment. There are many other tenants in the current facility. All costs associated with occupying the space (janitorial services, service providers etc.) are billable to the Government. For purposes of this acquisition, all these costs are contained within the material CLIN and will not need to be presented in the pricing volume. It is expected the selected offeor will assume the lease when they are issued the task order associated with the support for the System Support Facility. |
| RFP Part IV, Representations and Instructions, Section M, 3.1 Factor 1: Technical | Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method | 3 | Section M, 2.3 seems to indicate that the Technical Factor 1 is the most heavily weighted evaluation factor, yet it is only assigned an Acceptable/Unacceptable weighting factor. Past Performance Evaluation Factor, Section M, 4.1-4.2 seems to indicate that a much more detailed evaluation will be given to this proposal element. Can the Government please provide the relative weighting factors that will be used for each of the evaluated sections of the proposal? | As stated in Section M 2.3 "The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Factor 1 (Technical) is rated as acceptable/unacceptable. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are approximately equal in importance. Past Performance and Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 2 (Past Performance) being most important, Factor 3 (Price) is last in importance." Although the factors and technical subfactors are not "weighted", the most important is Technical, as that is the "gate" each offeror must "pass" to be further considered for award. As such a very thorough evaluation process is in place for the Technical Factor. If a proposal is deemed unacceptable, it does not matter what the Past Performance or Price is, as the proposal is unawardable. Following the Technical Factor assessment of either Acceptable or Unacceptable, Past Performance is the most important with Price being the least important. |
| DRAFT_FA821722R0001 | 252.251-7000 - ORDERING FROM GOVERNMENT SUPPLY SOURCES: | 26 | Remove TerraHealth, Inc. information. | The Terrahealth, Inc. reference has been removed from the solicitation and the referenced clause. |
| DRAFT_FA821722R0001 | 52.204-8 - ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS: | 29 | The addition of significant cloud computing and cyber security requirements reclassifies the bulk of the work on this program away from Computer Facility Management to Engineering Services. Therefore, this program is better classified under 541330 Exception A at $42.5M Standard Size. This classification is consistent with other SDVOSB Mission Planning contracts in the DoD, for example, (Special Operations Mission Planning Environment (SOMPE) I and II – W911W608D0002 and GS00Q14OADS331 / W911W619F901B, respectively). While the current NAICS code has been utilized in the past, the shift in work necessitates an update. NAICS 541330 Exception A will still allow the contract to maintain its small business size standard classification while appropriately classifying the work of the program. | The NAICS code will remain as is and has been for the previous efforts. The "bulk" of this workload is largely unchanged in regard to tasks and the mission, and remains appropriately classified. As NAICS code 541513 states we are conducting "on-site management and operation of clients' computer systems" and primarily involved in the transfer of data. The tools used are evolving, but those are being provided to us and the offeror is not expected to be involved in the use of engineering laws or principles as described in 541330. With the small exception of MPC, this contract is not the primarily developer or designer of any of these software, tools or products. The additions of cloud computing and cyber security is to keep pace with the development of new Agile tools and processes implemented by the MP Acquisition Program Office. MPSC IV primary task is to provide representatives to assist with the on-site management and operation of the MPEs users have in the field. The definition included with NAICS 541330 does not fit this effort and the Government is confident with its original assessment to continue with NAICS 541513. |
| DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_1_ AttachmentL1MPSCIVPWS DRAFT1Nov21, | 2.5.1 Configuration Management Tasks: | 16 | Item 14 references compliance with the Mission Planning Program Protection Plan. Please provide (or provide appropriate access to) the Mission Planning Program Protection Plan. | The Government will provide the applicable paragraphs and references contained in the Program Protection Plan in an update to the RFI comments prior to the final RFP release. |
| DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_5_ MPSCIV_SectionL_13Dec21, | 2.1.8 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits: | 3-4 | Most solicitations are going to 100% electronic submission. Please consider eliminating the submission of hard copies. | The Government requires hard copies of the proposal as defined in Section L Paragraph 2.1.8 including Table 1. The multiple hard copy documents are necessary to facilitate our proposal assessment team's ability to evaluate proposals in an efficient and collaborative manner. Reading documents in hard copy format provides quicker assess to various sections of Volume II (Technical) in particular, and reduces fatigue and eye strain associated with the extensive reading and evaluating of multiple 100 page volumes. The Government will consider removal of the hard copy requirement for the Price Volume, pending further discussion with the Price/Cost Team. While we understand the submission of electronic proposals may ease shipping concerns, we are confident offerors will find a way to ensure their proposals arrive on time, including the option of hand delivering them. With the Covid-19 situation, we do ask that each offeror coordinate with the PCO to ensure accommodations are made to receive each delivery. |
| DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_5_ MPSCIV_SectionL_13Dec21, | 2.1.8 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits: | 3-4 | Table 1: For Executive Summary Volume I, request Master Table of Contents for the entire proposal be excluded from the 6-page limit. The Master Table of Contents for the entire proposal can easily require at least 10 pages alone in addition to the Narrative Summary. | Section L 2.1.8.1 states the Tables of Contents are not counted in the page limit; an additional sentence has been added to Section L 3.2 to clarify this. |
| DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_5_ MPSCIV_SectionL_13Dec21, | 2.1.11 Cross-Referencing: | 5 | Please confirm that the Cross-Reference Matrix (Attachment L-2) referenced in Section L is intended for the Technical Volume II. | As addressed in Section 4.2.2, the Cross-Reference Matrix is intended to be included as part of the Technical Volume only, however another volume may also be referenced in the Cross-Reference Matrix (Columns C and D) if applicable. |
| DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_5_ MPSCIV_SectionL_13Dec21, | 2.1.16 Distribution: | 6-7 | Change “For Official Use Only” to “Controlled Unclassified Information.” | This instance of FOUO has been updated to CUI. |
| DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_5_ MPSCIV_SectionL_13Dec21, | 3.2 Table of Contents: | 7 | Request Master Table of Contents for the entire proposal be excluded from the 6-page volume limit. | Section L 2.1.8.1 states the Tables of Contents are not counted in the page limit; an additional sentence has been added to Section L 3.2 to clarify this. |
| DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_5_ MPSCIV_SectionL_13Dec21, | 4.4.1 Mission Planning Central (MPC) Support: | 9 | Please verify PWS reference to 2.12.4 in last sentence. There is currently no PWS paragraph 2.12.4. | Noted PWS reference removed from Section L. |
| DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_5_ MPSCIV_SectionL_13Dec21, | 4.5.2 Support for Deployed Units: | 10 | Please verify PWS references to 2.3.4 and 2.4.1.3.13. There are currently no PWS paragraphs for these references. | Noted PWS references removed from Section L. |
| DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_6_ MPSCIV_SectionM_13Dec21 | 5.5.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): | 11 | Given the extended Period of Performance and associated potential for significant changes in mission requirements, suggest the Government would be best served by evaluating the entirety of the pricing matrix rather than “notional quantities” which could allow unevaluated pricing to be incorporated into the resulting contract. | As stated in Section M 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 the entire pricing matrix will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance. No "un-evaluated" pricing will be incorporated, as every proposed price is evaluated for reasonableness and balance. The TEP will be evaluated using notional quantities determined by the Government. All offeror's are evaluated using the same criteria. Section M states "The TEP is for award purposes only and does not become a contractually binding amount after contract award; however, the unit prices within the Pricing Table will be contractually binding." |
| DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_11_ RemainingSectionLattachments _19Nov21 | ATTACHMENT L-2 (SECTION L): REQUIREMENTS TRACEABILITY CROSS- REFERENCE MATRIX: | 2 | Please confirm that the referenced Cross-Reference Matrix is intended for inclusion only in the Technical Volume II, not all proposal volumes. | As addressed in Section 4.2.2, the Cross-Reference Matrix is intended to be included as part of the Technical Volume only, however another volume may also be referenced in the Cross-Reference Matrix (Columns C and D) if applicable. |
| DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_10_ AttachmentL2Requirements Traceability CrossReferenceMatrix | Please confirm that the Cross-Reference Matrix is intended for inclusion only in the Technical Volume II. | As addressed in Section 4.2.2, the Cross-Reference Matrix is intended to be included as part of the Technical Volume only, however another volume may also be referenced in the Cross-Reference Matrix (Columns C and D) if applicable. | ||
| DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_10_ AttachmentL2Requirements Traceability CrossReferenceMatrix | Please verify all the Section L and Section M paragraph references in the matrix. Numerous references don’t align. |
For example, Section L 4.4.2 (Deficiency Investigation Process) doesn’t align to Section M 3.2.2 (Cybersecurity and Information Assurance (IA)).
| Another example is Section L 4.5.1 (Worldwide Support) doesn’t align to Section M 3.3.1 (Mission Planning Central (MPC) Support). | The misaligned references have been corrected in the document. | |||
| Draft_RFP_Attachment_1_AttachmentL1MPSCIVPWSDRAFT1Nov21 | 2.11.2-3 | 27 | Per the PWS, the government states, "The Contractor shall utilize CMMI Level 3 processes for configuration management of MPC products." |
Based on this PWS requirement, would the government consider making CMMI Level 3 dev certification a baseline requirement for this procurement?
This will provide the government with a Company that understands its capabilities and performance to meet customer needs; is committed to improving its capabilities and performance to provide the most efficient solutions to its customers; remains focused on optimizing performance and processes by supporting and investing in quality products/processes; is committed to consistency in meeting budgets and schedules.
At this time, the Government is not going to require CMMI Level 3 certification, just that CMMI Level 3 process are used as stated
Industry Day One-on-One Q&A
| MPSC-IV - Industry Day Q&A - 2/2/22 | ||||
| Document | Section | Page | Question/Comment | Govt. Response |
| Can the government confirm that for SBA approved Mentor Protégé JVs, as per SBA and NDAA guidance, the contract FCL requirement will be met if the JV members have the required clearance? | GAO has affirmed that a joint venture does not have to hold the facility clearance where its members do hold the required facility clearance. Please see the following website for more information: https://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/gao-affirms-sba-rule-only-joint-venture-members-not-the-jv-need-facility-clearance/ | |||
| Since the government asks that offerors use CMMI processes, will the government include an additional technical evaluation factor to reward companies appraised at CMMI Maturity Level 3 or higher during the evaluation process? | No. At this time, the Government is not going to require CMMI Level 3 certification, just that CMMI Level 3 process are used, as stated. We will not be adding any additional technical evaluation criteria specific to CMMI. | |||
| Will demonstrated CMMI or Agile SAFe experience be weighted in favor of offerors as part of the evaluation for past performance volume? | It is possible that CMMI and Agile Safe experience may be rated favorably if they intersect with the definitions of Relevancy as it applies to Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity in Section M for the Past Performance Volume. | |||
| We understand the government will not dictate FTE count across the entire program and that funding for specific positions is up to the discretion of specific MAJCOMs, however can the government provide historical staffing data for the levels of effort? | No. Current and previous staffing is considered proprietary data. As in previous MPSC acquisitions, offerors are expected to conduct their own research and assessment of the requirements and provide their proposed manpower solutions. This contract is not a level of effort acquisition. It is performance based. The Government dictates the tasks (the what) and the contractor responds with "the how". We recognize that one specific area, MPC, calls our a specific sized team only because Agile Release Teams (ARTs) have specific definitions/criteria. | |||
| Does the government plan to use any automated evaluation tools as part of the evaluation process? | The government intends to use a program called EZSource to facilitate the proposal evaluation process and document all evaluations results. | |||
| Will successful incumbent capture efforts (retention, compensation plan, successful transitions) be weighted in favor of offerors as part of the past performance evaluation? | An ability to successfully capture incumbent employees on past and current efforts may be rated favorably as it applies to the definition of Relevancy for Scope as detailed in Section M. Specifics about attempts to capture current MPSC III employees is a discussion best suited for the technical evaluation, as capturing of employees that currently belong to an effort you have not performed on does not support past performance criteria. Only the stated evaluation performance elements that have been specifically stated in the RFP documentation will be considered during the evaluation. Please refer to Section M for discussion of past efforts and their relation to Scope, Magnitude and Complexity. | |||
| Can the government provide specific instructions and security requirements for delivery of the hardcopy submission (i.e., is sponsorship for base visitor access required)? | There is currently a 100% ID check per person (per vehicle) requirement at each gate for all individuals entering the base. Individuals are not currently required to wear a face mask while on base property or provide proof of a DD3150 Vaccination Card. However, these conditions may change at any time as a result of increases/decreases to the bases Health Protection Condition (HPCON) level. |
Individuals with a valid and current government issued Common Access Card (CAC), Retiree ID, or other valid base access credentials, should be allowed access to the base without sponsorship.
For proposals that are being delivered through mail couriers/delivery services such as: FedEX, United Parcel Service (UPS), and US Postal Service; these should be allowed on base without sponsorship.
For proposals that are being hand delivered by the contractor, the employees will need to meet one of the previously identified requirements (i.e., current government issued CAC card, retired government card, etc.), or they will be required to be sponsored onto the base. For any sponsorships that are required, please contact the Contracting Officer at least 1 week before the anticipated delivery date to work through the sponsorship process. Instructions are also included in Section L paragraph 2.1.16. For offeror's who intend to hand deliver their proposal package and are not able to physically access the base, the Contracting Officer is willing to meet offeror's outside of the base perimeter as a last resort for emergency situations. Contact information is included in paragraph 2.1.16 for these emergency situations. This is only to be used as a last resort after expending all efforts necessary to get access to the base approved before hand.
| 1.) Ref PWS 1.4.2, 1.4.3. Could the Air Force describe the role the MAJCOM plays at the task order level, specifically looking for insight into how day to day activities / requirements are delivered or disseminated to the contractor. | The primary source of communication for day to day activities in managed by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR). The MAJCOM dictates the # of systems, the mission (Operational, Test, or Training), which locations will be placed on contract, the security clearance and support level needed, and the length of time each task order is needed. Updates to MDSs, # of systems, and changes to locations are all worked through the COR and accounted for in our ability to use the NTE pricing structure. Travel and materials are estimated between the COR and MAJCOM. The MAJCOMs play a critical role in determining what is placed on each task order. Secondary Customers (i.e. units in the field) may provide feedback and requests, but the decision authority resides with the Primary Customer providing the funding. The COR is heavily involved with communications between the MAJCOMs, customers in the field and the contractor regarding requirements. |
| 2.) Ref PWS 2.1.1.1. What challenges is the Government facing with CAC cards? We have recently seen numerous issues at a number of locations either obtaining or transferring CACs. Does the Air Force see this as a potential issue? | Challenges can exists with obtaining CACs, particularly during the current time. The contractor works closely with the gov't to coordinate CAC authorizations and oversight. The contractor will not be responsible for CAC authorization delays that are outside of its control, but is expected to do all possible to mitigate potential impacts if a CAC delay is impacting service. |
| 3.) Ref PWS 2.2.4. Is the Air Force considering a migration to a new trouble ticketing software application? Are there limitations on offerors that would prevent them from recommending a new solution? Does the current EDR solution meet Government requirements / expectations? | The current EDR solution does meet our requirements and expectations. As described in Section M, para 3.3.2- Deficiency Investigation Process, offerors are free to provide an alternate solution. Any proposed solution will be evaluated for technical acceptability in accordance with Section M para 3.3.2 |
| 4.) Ref PWS 2.3. What (in general) has been the longevity/tenure of the SSRs? Have most been there in their positions for multiple years, or is there typically high turn-over? Any specifics the Air Force is willing to share would be very beneficial. | Some SSRs have been in their positions for quite some time, other locations experience turnover. Each location and circumstance is unique and there is no comprehensive method to address this specifically other than to say it is the Government's perception that OCONUS SSRs seem to experience more longevity, but no specific information is available to the Government to determine all of the factors affecting retention at any given location. Yet, as noted in Section L&M, a contractor's ability to hire and retain employees is evaluated in both technical and past performance. |
| 5.) Ref PWS 2.5. Could the Air Force describe how software is currently delivered to remote locations, including both physical and digital distributions? What infrastructure does the Air Force employ to distribute software (items such as DVD replicators, magnetic tape, drive duplication machines, etc.). | A combination of hard-copy/existing AF processes are utilized to provide physical optical media. Currently that does include material and processes involved in the use of physical media (Blu-Ray, DVD, duplicators etc.). Currently, the SSF only distributed media directly to authorized test organizations. For fielding software, the CM team delivers the software packed to the Software Control Center (a government organization) for distribution through TODOs. We are exploring electronic solutions that may include cloud and edge servers at some point in the future, but that implementation will be after the award of MPSC IV. The solutions are provided by the Air Force and are not something that the contractor needs to define. Physical materials for the current operation are provided via the Materials CLIN. |
| 6.) Ref PWS 2.11. For Mission Planning Central, is the Air Force encountering any user interface challenges? |
Have Any User Stories or Studies been completed?
| REF 2.11.5.2 How Did the government determine that 7 trained members of the ART team was the correct staffing level? If the offeror arrived at a different conclusion based on emerging best practices, experience, and skillsets, would the government allow a different quantity of staff to be proposed (including the potential for a larger ART team)? | MPC uses an agile process and is constantly evolving to meet user needs. Currently we are not experiencing an abnormal level of user interface challenges, and MPC is operating as expected. Yes, user stories are being consistently completed. We conduct bi-weekly sprints, employing an Agile development environment. The MPSSF interdisciplinary team reviewed historical performance and sprint data etc. and determined the minimum size of an ART Team with significant input from engineering. The ART team size is a minimum requirement. If an offeror arrives at the conclusion that a larger team is needed based on best practices, experience etc. the Government is fine with that and it would be considered part of an offerors' unique solution. Be advised, anything less than 7 would be considered to be technically unacceptable. | ||
| 7.) Is any of current work executed under a collective bargaining agreement? | No | ||
| 8.) Can the Government please identify how many of the personnel on the current contract are covered by SCA, if any? | No. Employee pay rates are at the discretion of the company. The Service Contract Act is not applicable to the current contract (MPSC-III) or MPSC-IV. |
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 .