Attachment 10 Responses to Questions.pdf

H92222-10-R-0014 Responses to Questions

Questions on ITSM RFP

Section/Paragraph, Page Questions/Comments Response

General Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees – FAR clause 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, appears to be missing from the RFP. Are we correct in assuming that this FAR clause is applicable? Since the ITSM contract meets the criteria set forth in the clause (negotiated service contract exceeding $550,000 and requiring meaningful numbers of professional employees), are we correct in assuming that it will be incorporated by reference? If so, please clarify in which volume offerors should submit their Total Compensation Plans.

The provision was inadvertently left out. The provision has been added by this amendment

General OCI Plan – The OCI Special Notice released on 14 May stated that offerors submitting proposals for any contract will be required to submit an OCI mitigation plan. The RFP does not appear to contain a requirement for submission of an OCI Plan.

Please clarify whether this plan is to be submitted with the proposal and, if so, in which volume.

The ITSM Prime and Subs are OCI’d from participation in any other SITEC towers. As such, no OCI mitigation plan is required.

Section B, pp. 4 - 5 CLINS 1003, 1004, and 1005 – For the unit prices for the different levels of Service Desk Operations, what does the word “net” mean or refer to in “MAX NET AMT”?

The MAX NET AMT will be calculated by multiplying Offeror’s Unit price by the Maximum Quantity. This amount will be inserted in the the final contract.

Attachment 9 (Pricing Matrix)

Labor Categories – The pricing matrix provides labor categories to be used for pricing the CPIF portion of effort. Will the Government provide the education and experience associated with these labor categories? This will ensure that all offerors are pricing to the same baseline, thereby streamlining your evaluation. It will also allow offerors to price more accurately and provide staffing with the appropriate qualifications to meet the Government’s needs.

The labor categories included in the pricing matrix are those anticipated to be required. Offerors are expected to propose labor based on their proposed approach to accomplishing the contract requirements.

Attachment 1, PWS Relationship Between ITSM Contractor and ITMO – The PWS in the Draft RFP referred to the ITSM contractor as a “trusted partner to support and enhance the ITMO service management capabilities. References to the ITSM contractor as a partner appear to have been removed from the PWS in the Final RFP.

Does the Government still desire a partnering relationship with the ITSM contractor?

The Government will not enter into a partnership with the ITSM contractor.

Attachment 6 (DD254) DD254 Period of Performance – Block 9 states the Period of Performance (PoP) as 1 October 2010 through 31 March 2011” (i.e., for the Transition Period only). Should this PoP be for at least the first 2 ½ years, if not the full 6 ½ years PoP?

Industrial Security requires DD254 to be updated annually. The initial DD254 only addresses the transition period.

Attachment 6 (DD254) DD254 Access Requirements – Block 10(k) states that both NIPRNet and SIPRNet access is required at contractor’s facility while Paragraph 3.2 of the Attachment 1 PWS states that only NIPRNet access is needed at the contractor’s facility. Please clarify.

The DD254 hs been corrected. SIPRNET access is not required at the Contractor Facility.

L.1.13, p. 80 Formats – We recognize that 1 ½ line spacing enhances readability for narrative text and tables. However, for graphics and charts that use a limited amount of text (i.e., org charts, process flows, complex illustrations), 1 ½ line spacing can diminish readability and make layout and formatting difficult.

Would the Government consider specifying single spacing for graphics and charts that use a limited amount of text?

The RFP has been revised allow single spacing in graphics and charts.

L.1.14, I-C, p. 81 Cover Letter – In Volume 1, offerors are required to submit a proposal cover letter with information on points of contact. Is this the only cover letter that is to be submitted or may offerors include a separate transmittal letter that summarizes key features of the proposal (outside of page count)?

This is the only cover letter that will be permitted. All other key features should be included in the proposal.

L.1.14, I-E, p. 81 Subcontracting Goals – The RFP states the Subcontracting goals as a “percentage of subcontracted dollars.” With this approach, offerors will determine the percentage of the work they will subcontract and then 30% of that amount will go to SB firms (with additional percentages as specified to meet the various socio-economic goals). This may result in significant disparity among offerors in their approaches to SB subcontracting. Please clarify whether this is indeed the intent of the Government. If not, are the goals intended to be expressed as a percentage of total contract value?

The RFP is stated correctly.

L1.14, II-X, p. 88;

Attachment 6 (DD254)

Transition Gantt Chart – The DD254 shows a contract start date of 1 Oct 10 while Section L states that offerors should “assume an award date of 15 September 2010.” Should the Transition Gantt chart show a start date of 1 Oct 10 or 15 Sep 10?

Section L will be modified to show an assumed award of 1 Oct 10.

L.1.14, III-A, p. 89 SF 294/295 – Since Standard Forms 294/295 provide subcontracting data for individual contracts, are we correct in assuming that you require offerors to submit a 294/295 for each relevant contract? If so, please clarify:

• Is one year of history meeting subcontracting/goals/targets sufficient?

• Since the SFs 294/295 comprise multiple pages per contract, are these excluded from the 25-page limit for Past Performance?

A 294/295 should be submitted for each relevent contract.

Offerors shall provide SF 294s for the last three years.

The Summary sheet is included in the page count. The SF 294/295s are not included in the page count.

M.1.2, p. 95 Weighting of Evaluation Factors – The Draft RFP (Section M.1.1) specified the weighting of the evaluation factors as follows: “Past Performance, while important, is of less importance than Technical Management …When combined Management/Technical, and Past Performance are significantly more important than Cost/Price.” This language has been removed in the final RFP. Will the Government please clarify whether the weighting from the DRFP still applies? If not, what is the relative weighting of the ITSM evaluation Factors?

Section M has been modified to include the relative importance of the factors.

General Can a small business be on two or more winning teams for the Single award towers in SITEC?

As stated in the RFP the ITSM Contractor and subcontractors will be precluded from providing supplies or services under the USSOCOM Information Technology Enterprise Contracts (SITEC) Data Center Services, Distributed Computing Services, Enterprise Network Services, Application Management Services, Specialty Services, and C4I Production Services- TACLAN as a prime or a subcontractor this includes COTs products. Other contractors may be on two or more winniing teams provided there is not an OCI as definded by FAR 9.5

– please refer to the OCI document posted on FBO.

Section L, paragraph 1.14, III-A

Section L, paragraph 1.14, III-A states: “The Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Proposal (Volume 3) containing the following … describing the role of the Offeror … and/or joint venture partner.” Section M does not indicate how past performances from joint venture partners will be evaluated.

Please clarify how Past Performances summaries submitted by Joint Venture Partners will be evaluated. Specifically, would a Past Performance from a Joint Venture Member count toward determining the Past Performance rating of the Joint Venture Entity or must the Joint Venture present Past Performances that were accomplished as the Joint Venture Entity?

The Government will evaluate Joint Venture past performance if the Government determines it is relevant in regards to overall organizational size, technical scope, geographic complexity, and extent of the services provided by the Offeror to the reference customer as stated in the RFP.

Section L, paragraph 1.14, II-S

Section L, paragraph 1.14, II-S, states; “… Identify quality certifications the Offeror holds and which process development and management standards that have been adopted and are utilized to deliver its services, such as: ITIL, CMMI, cobit, ISO, etc.” Section M, paragraph 1.3.7, states: “… The Government’s Management Plan evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to access highly specialized skill sets with required certifications …” Would certifications from a Joint Venture Member count toward determining the Joint Venture’s qualifications or must the Joint Venture present certifications earned by the Joint Venture Entity?

The Government will evaluate Certifications associated with the Joint Venture entity only.

Sections B, E and F These sections do not include CLINs 1008, 2008, 3008, 4008, 5008 and 6008. However these CLINs are cited in Section L, 1.14, I-E. : Is it the Government’s intention to add them to Section B, or should CLINs 1006, 2006, 3006, 4006, 5006 and 6006 have been cited in Section L, 1.14, I-E?

The final RFP has been ammedned to remove references to CLINs 1008, 2008, 3008, 4008, 5008 and 6008

Section K, 52.219-1, (b)(6)(i) and (ii):

If a Joint Venture (JV) includes a certified HUBZone small business firm, but other members of the JV do not qualify as small business concerns, should both of these clause subparagraphs be marked as “is not …”?

Recommend Joint Ventures obtain advice of counsel and the Small Business Administration for guidance on answering this question.

Section K, 5652-204-9000: This clause does not provide for identification of a Joint Venture’s (JV) authorized signatory. How should a JV indicate who is authorized to sign

The individual authorized as signatory for a Joint Venture is dependent on the organization of the Joint Venture.

Section K, 5652-204-9001 and Section L, 1.14, I-B:

For a Joint Venture (JV), will it be acceptable to cite the Top Secret Facility Clearances on the JV Member Firms?

Industrial Security requires that the Joint Venture Entity have its own facility clearance.

Section K, 5652-242-9001 and Section L, 1.14, I-D:

For a Joint Venture (JV), will it be acceptable to provide the JV Member Firm’s DCMA, DCAA approved accounting system documentation?

The offeror should provide DCMA contact information for all Joint Venture members. The acceptability of a Joint Ventures accounting System is dependent on how the Joint Venture is organized.

Section: Appendix A Clause:

Paragraph: Table 1 Page: first page

Comment: Service Level Agreement (SLA) A2-5 lists “Common” in the Shared Targets column. An explanation of that term is not provided. It is the only SLA that contains that term.

Question: Would the Government please clarify the meaning of “Common” as a Shared Target?

Common SLAs are in multiple contracts but evaluated independently.

Section: General question Clause:

Paragraph:

Page:

Comment: Validity period is not mentioned in the RFP, except for SF 33, Block 12, which indicates 60 days unless otherwise stated in the RFP. Per RFP p. 78, the estimated award date is 1 Oct 2010. 60 days will take us only to the end of August.

Question: What is the required proposal validity period?

The validity period in the RFP has been revised.

Section: H Clause: Ordering Procedures Paragraph: H6 second paragraph Page: 32 of 100

Comment: The basis for Average number of users per month seems unclear.

Question: How is a daily user defined? Is it defined as the number of accounts within the AD?

The number of active accounts in Active Directory will be analyzed over the month divided by the number of days in the month to determine the average for the month. Clause H.6 has been revised to provide further clarity.

Section: Attachment 9 Pricing Matrix Clause: ITSMP Services Labor Cat Paragraph:

Page:

Comment: Attachment 9 has duplicate Labor Categories for both Financial Analyst and Service Catalog Manager.

Attachment_9_-_Pricing_Matrix_(26_May_10).xlsx

Question: Please clarify.

The duplicates categories have been deleted form attachment 9.

Section: Attachment 9 Pricing Matrix Clause:

Paragraph:

Page:

Comment: No Enterprise Architect Labor Categories are provided in the worksheet entitled “CIO Support Labor Cat”.

They have instead been included in the worksheet entitled “ITSMP Services Labor Cat”.

Question: Is this correct? The work associated with CIO Support includes both EA and IA.

Architecture labor categories are identified under both the CIO Support and ITSM tabs.

Section: L Paragraph: L.1.6 and

L.1.14 (II-X)

Page: 78 and 88

Comment: Section L.1.6 states contract award as 1 October 2010 and L.1.14 Tab II-X states contract award as 15 September 2010.

Question: May offerors assume that L.1.6 states the correct contract award date?

Section L.1.14 Tab II-X has been modified to state 1 October 2010.

Section: L.1.14 Clause:

Paragraph: Tabs II-F through II-R Page: 83-84 of 100

Comment: The roles and responsibilities requirement for Tabs II-F through II-R contains the phrase “provider service design roles and responsibilities” which appears to be a repeat of the corresponding phrase from Tab II-E Service Design.

Question: May offerors assume that the repeated use of the word “design” is unintentional, and that “design” in Tabs II-F through II-R should instead be read as the service function contained in the respective titles of Tabs II-F through II-R ?

The Government is requesting the service design approach for each of the areas which reference separate PWS paragraphs.

Section: L.1.14 Clause:

Paragraph: II-U Page: 86 of 100

Comment: Section L Tab II-U [Key Personnel Résumés] contains a certification achievement matrix for contractor personnel, but does not provide guidance on the breadth of personnel for which it is intended. Section M contains the phrase “Mandatory personnel certifications will be evaluated based upon the total number of Offeror’s staff that has the requisite certification”.

Question: May offerors assume that the matrix is intended for key personnel only, since that is the scope of Tab II-U?

Your assumption is correct.

Section: L Clause:

Paragraph: L.1.14 (II-X) Page: 88

Comment: The Transition In Project Plan asks bidders to identify USSOCOM and Incumbent contractor required resources. To do so, bidders need to understand the level of resources/cooperation to be expected from the incumbent.

Question: Is the incumbent contractor required to comply with the requirements of FAR 52.237-3 Continuity of Services?

Yes the contractor is required to comply with the requirements of FAR 52.237-3 Continuity of Services.

Section: L Clause: L.1.14 Paragraph:

Page: 89

Comment: The page limit is set here at 25 pages. The SF 294 is typically at least a one-page form; sometimes two-pages.

Question: Is the required Summary Page included in the 25 page limit? Are the 294/295 pages exempt from the 25 page limit?

The Summary sheet is included in the page count. The SF 294/295s are not included in the page count.

Section: L. 1.14 Clause:

Paragraph: Volume III Page: 89

Comment: The RFP states “Completed SF 294/295” must be included in the Past Performance Information volume.

Question: Are we correct in assuming that the Government requires only the SF 294 for each past performance citation, since the SF 294 is contract specific?

Question: May Offers assume that the SF 294 for just the most current performance year is required?

SF 294s need to provide for each relevant contract. Offerors shall provide SF 294s for the last three years.

Section: L.1.14 Clause:

Paragraph: Volume IV Page: 90

Comment: CLIN 7008 is listed under Part IV-B (CPIF CLINs) and also under Part IV-C (FFP CLINs). Section B indicates CLIN 7008 is a CPIF CLIN.

Question: Are we correct in assuming that CLIN 7008 should be addressed in only Part IV-B?

CLIN 7008 is a CPIF CLIN. Paragraph L.1.14 is amended to delete CLIN 7008 from the list of FFP CLINs.

Section: M.12 Clause:

Paragraph: 2 Page: 95

Comment: The RFP states: “Technical/Management sub factors are equal in importance. Sub factor ratings roll up into an overall rating for each of the factors. The offered prices under Cost/Price Proposal will be evaluated separately. Technical/Management is more important than Cost/Price.”

Question: Where does the Past Performance volume fall within the relative order of importance?

The relative order of Past Performance has been added to Section M.

Section: PWS Clause:

Paragraph: 7.4.3 Project Management Page: 59 of 114

Comment: Item 4 in the Roles and Responsibilities table states the ITSM contractor will manage and maintain (e.g., Procure ….) software licenses and media…

Question: Are we correct in assuming that the government does not intend for the ITSM contractor to procure software for the enterprise and that the word “procure” should be removed from the referenced RFP section?

The inclusion of “procure” has been deleted from the Roles & Responsibilities.

Section: PWS Clause:

Paragraph: 7.2.6, 7.3.9, 7.4.9, 9.1.2 Page: 36, 53, 70, 104

Comment: The Roles and Responsibilities table within the PWS contains several items with missing or contradictory content.

Both ITSM Contractor and Government columns are checked in the following:

T7.2.6.20. Introduce service to the USSOCOM IT Service Catalog

The assignment to ITSM Contractor or Government is not checked in the following:

T7.3.9.2. Review and maintain in the Standard Process and Procedures Manual, Engineering/Development requirements and policies

T7.4.9.13. Monitor IT service providers to verify that all providers are following SDDM policy and requirements for logging, naming, etc.

T9.1.2.18. In coordination with ITMO and J6/CIO, coordinate with site IA personnel to enforce network security measures

Question: Would the Government please clarify the entries for those items?

There will be some services (other organizations/agencies that operate on the SIE and will continue to be maintained by the government. As such, both the contractor and government will add items to the service catalogue.

Paragraphs T7.3.9.2., T7.4.9.13., and T9.1.2.18.hve been revised to completed the appropriate checked box.

Section: PWS Clause: 8.4 Paragraph: Remote Device and Software Administrative Services Page: 96-97

Comment: The Roles and Responsibilities table states item 5 as follows:

Utilize remote controls to manage and update software, and to maintain configuration and inventory information.

Question: Would the Government please clarify if the Service Desk is responsible for software pushes of patches, upgrades, etc. to ITSAP maintained configurations (e.g., Data Center servers, Enterprise Network routers, Distributed Computing desktops/laptops)?

The Service Desk is not responsible for pushing software updates, patches, etc.

RFP, SOW L 1.14, p. 89, Volume III

Past Performance Information, states that the page limit for Volume III – Past Performance Information is 25 pages.

Question: This offeror understands that the SF 294s/295s will not be included in the page count. Is this understanding correct?

The Summary sheet is included in the page count. The SF 294/295s are not included in the page count.

RFP, Section L.1.13, p. 80, Table, Formats

Font size shall be uncompressed Times New Roman, in no smaller than 11 point for text, and 10 point for spreadsheets, tables, and graphics.

Question: Request that offerors be allowed to use Arial Narrow, 8 point, for graphics and tables.

The government has revised the font requirements for graphics and tables.

RFP, Section L.1.14, p. 85, Volume II - II-T – Offeror Team Organization and Staffing Structure

Eighth bullet, last sentence, states “For certifications that are awarded to individuals, provide certification type, level achieved, number of certified personnel, and year achieved”.

Question: Request the government clarify the requirement for the “year(s) achieved”.

For example; If an offeror has over 200 PMI PMPs. What year/years would we show in the “year achieved” block for this category?

Please respond with quantity by year.

H.9, page 35

When are Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) identified in H.9 required to be executed (pre-award or post-award of the prime contract)?

Post-Award.

H.11, page 36-37

Will the restriction set forth in Section H.11 (b) apply to the awardee and its subcontractors so as to foreclose sales of commercial item hardware, software and associated services (collectively, "COTS Products") by the awardee or any of its subcontractors on the seven (7) programs listed in Section H.11(b)? In the interest of furthering competition and achieving the balance of interests sought under Subpart 9.5, this offeror believes it would be in the interest of both the Government and contractors and subcontractors to permit sales of COTS Products through an express statement that Section H.11(b) is inapplicable, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section H.11.

As stated in the RFP the ITSM Contractor and subcontractors will be precluded from providing supplies or services under the USSOCOM Information Technology Enterprise Contracts (SITEC) Data Center Services, Distributed Computing Services, Enterprise Network Services, Application Management Services, Specialty Services, and C4I Production Services- TACLAN as a prime or a subcontractor this includes COTs products.

H, page 42

Is there an existing schedule of Government Furnished Property? There is no schedule of Government Furnished Property.

L1.14, II-U, page 86

For those with ITIL V3 Expert that did the bridge more than 12 months ago, can they be exempt from the 12 month requirement?

As long as the certification is still valid, yes.

L 1.13, page 80

Arial 8 pt font is the industry standard for use in tables and figures and Arial is easier to read in smaller font sizes than is TNR. Please revise the requirement to Arial 8pt.

The government has revised the font requirements for graphics and tables.

L 1.14, Volume III , page

The following para specifies "up to 5 Past Performance examples" of max 5 pages each, plus summary information and a SF294/295 for each contract. Five examples X 5 pages each + 5 SF294/295 X 2 pages each plus summary would exceed the 25 page max for this section. Please confirm that the 25 page max applies to the past performance summaries only, and that SF294/295 and overall Summary information does not count toward the 25 page total.

The Summary sheet is included in the page count. The SF 294/295s are not included in the page count.

Att 1 PWS, 3.8, page 8 Please provide the complete list of approved operations management and IA hardware and software tools.

Everything that is available has been provided in the Bidder’s Library.

Att 1 PWS, 3.9, page 8 How is the additional cost associated with Contractor staff required travel to OCONUS locations, including war zones to be addressed in the pricing or will it be addressed at a later date when required? This includes such cost as Defense Base Act insurance, Hardship Allowance Pay and Danger Pay Allowance.

Costs related to OCONUS performance will be covered by the Cost CLINs of the contract.

Att 1 PWS, 5.5, page 15 Please provide detailed description of the hardware and software currently supporting the service desk?

Everything that is available has been provided in the Bidder’s Library.

Att 1 PWS, 5.5, page 15 8.7, page 98

Please clarify that provision of tools is the responsibility of the Government.

The government will provide all tools required to operate and maintain the SIE.

Att 1 PWS/Att 2 SLA What are the average number of active projects? Planned projects?

The current project list is posted in the bidders library and is representative of the average.

Att 1 PWS/Att 2 SLA What are the number of IMAC service requests by FY 2008 and FY2009. What are the YTD metrics for FY2010? Please provide Service Request statistics for FY08, FY09 and YTD FY10

Everything that is available has been provided in the Bidder’s Library.

Att 1 PWS/Att 2 SLA Please provide Incident Mgmt. statistics for FY08, FY09 and YTD FY10 including -

* Total numbers of Incidents

* Mean elapsed time to achieve Incident resolution or circumvention, broken down by impact code

* Percentage of Incidents handled within agreed response time )

* Number and percentage of Incidents resolved at First-Call

* The number and impact of Incidents occurring before the root Problem is closed or a Known Error is confirmed

Everything that is available has been provided in the Bidder’s Library.

Att 1 PWS/Att 2 SLA Please provide Change Mgmt. statistics for FY08, FY09 and YTD FY10 including

* # of changes approved, rejected, deferred and implemented

* Breakdown of reasons for change

* # of and % of successful changes

* # of and % of emergency changes

* # of and % of approved changes that are backed out, with reasons for the back out

Everything that is available has been provided in the Bidder’s Library.

Att 2 SLA Are there planned or periodic event-driven activities that have historically resulted in predictable service desk call peaks requiring an increase in staff? If so, please provide details.

Everything that is available has been provided in the Bidder’s Library.

Att 2 SLA, Page 21-28 Please provide 12 months of historical data showing the contract performance against the service levels in the RFP.

Everything that is available has been provided in the Bidder’s Library.

Att 2 SLA, A-.3.3, Page 26 Please clarify that escalated calls are included in this metric calculation as per 2A.

Escalated calls are included in the metric.

RFP, PWS Table 8.1, pg 92, Number 8 describes a functional capability of an IVR system.

PWS Section 8.0, pg 88, third para states USSOCOM will provide the Service Desk hardware, software and systems.

Question: Is the ITSM Contractor expected to provide an IVR system for the Service Desk?

An IVR (Interactive Voice Response) is provided by the Government.

The contractor is not expected to provide this capability – just monitor/maintain.

RFP PWS Section 7.7 , item 30, Page 87

The RFP requires the contractor to “Develop, maintain, update, and provide for review by Government, all service-specific Certification and Accreditation (C&A) documentation specified in Government C&A Framework and DCID 6/3 as applicable (CDRL A014).” and PWS Section 9.1.3, page 107, items 4 (Perform all actions associated with proper Information Assurance and security Certification and Accreditation of information technologies for all USSOCOM systems, to include but not limited to, type accreditations for all USSOCOM-developed systems and products…. ), 5 (Provide updates to certification documentation and provide recommendation to the site certification authority as required (CDRL A019) ) and 9 (Develop and update C&A documents associated with connection to and operation of USSOCOM developed systems and applications on the Global Information Grid (GIG) and SIE

(CDRL A014)).

Question: How many separate C&A packages will the contractor need to develop review, validate, etc?

The project annual number of C&A packages including Components is 200. The average time to complete a package is 4 weeks.

RFP PWS Section 9.1.3 Bullets 6 and 8, page 107, require the contractor to “Conduct C&A-related enterprise and subordinate enclave network vulnerability scans …..” and to “Conduct C&A-related scans supporting USSOCOM Baseline Acceptance Testing…..”.

Question: Will the contractor be required to conduct scanning of the entire enterprise to include the Component Commands or only HQ systems?

Entire Enterprise to include Component locations.

General The Industry Day Slides - Day 1 (slides 26 and 27) state that the Service Area tower providers (Application, Data Center, etc.)

will be awarded contracts and begin “transition in” activities in January, 2011. The ITSM Contractor’s Performance Work Statement (PWS) defines the ITSM Contractor’s support of these Service Area Providers’ transition activities in Section 7.1. As defined in the main RFP document (p. 3), the ITSM Contractor’s work for Section 7.1 is part of CLIN 1001. The period of performance for CLIN 1001, RFP page 27, does not begin until April 1, 2011.

Question: Is it correct to assume that the Contractor will not provide management support and oversight of the other Service Area tower providers “transition activities” until April 1, 2011 as part of CLIN 1001?

No, although the each service provider will not begin service performance until 1 April 2011 they will begin transition activities upon award of the service tower contract.

RFP Section L 1.14, Volume II-T, page 85

The , requests certification achievments for contractor companies.

Question: Are offerors able to use internal certifications, such as ISO/IEC 20000 certifications of internal systems?

Only if certifications are directly relevant so the services being requested by and delivered to the Government.

RFP, Section M.1.6.2, page 99, second bullet “FFP CLINs – Government estimated user requirements multiplied by contractor proposed prices for the estimated range (other range prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing (see 2.4.3 below))”

Question: Please provide the estimates of user requirements for the FFP CLINs for the base and option periods?

The government will utilize an estimated user requirement to evaluate pricing in the ranges. That amount is irrelevant to offerors proposals for each price band.

Atch 9 Pricing Matrix Worksheet Instructions, Rows 9 and 10

"… in accordance with PWS paragraph ??????? " Please provide the correct PWS references in the three missing locations.

Attachment 9 has been revised to include the correct reference.

RFP Atch 9 Pricing Matrix B, pages 4 - 20

Worksheet: CLINS

Section B CLINs for Bronze, Silver and Gold Service Desk each have a quantity.

Excel worksheet for CLINs states Qty Undefined Should the Offeror populate the Excel cells for Bronze, Silver and Gold Service Desk quantity to be the same as the quantities shown in Section B?

The contractor will only need to provide unit prices. The Government estimated number of users will be used to calculate the most probable cost.

RFP

Atch 9 Pricing Matrix L, page 93, 5652.215-9005 Estimated Prices for Data (2000)

In accordance with DFARS 215.470 the offeror shall provide estimated data prices for each data item set forth on the DD Form 1423 "Contract Data Requirements List." There isn't a CLIN established for pricing the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), nor is there a worksheet in the Pricing Matrix.

1. How shall the Offeror provide the pricing for the CDRLs?

2. What type of price (FFP, T&M, etc) is expected for the pricing of the CDRLs?

Estimated data prices shall be included in block 18 of the CDRL.

Estimated data prices not requested for pricing purposes. They are only requested for purposes of analysis as required by DoD regulations. The cost of the data is built in to the existing CLIN structure.

RFP L, 1.14, page 90 Offeror must include the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, address, and phone number. Please provide the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, address, and phone number so that we may include in the proposal.

Offerors shall contact their cognizant DCMA office to obtain the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, address, and phone number.

RFP B, Page 22 Page 33, H.6

CLIN 7008 is shown as CPIF

FPIF Targets, Fees and Share Ratios for CLIN 7008 shall be in accordance with Section B of the schedule. Please clarify whether CLIN 7008 is CPIF or FPIF

The correct contract type is CPIF. The RFP will be corrected.

RFP L, 1.14, page 90 The pricing proposal shall include a target cost, target fee, minimum fee, maximum fee and share ratio for each CPIF CLIN. We request that the Government provide guidance surrounding their expectations on minimum fee, maximum fee, and share ratios above/below target?

The Government does not have expectations regarding CPIF fees and share ratios.

RFP H.7, page 34 For CPIF CLINs the Target Fee shall be reduced by 2% for each SLA for each month in which the contractor failed to meet the Minimum Acceptable SLA performance levels during the evaluation period. Please clarify that the target fee price reduction will not exceed the value of the target fee percentage (e.g., target fee is 8%; reduction stops once 0% fee is reached)?

The target fee cannot be reduced below $0.

RFP H.7, page 34 For CPIF CLINs the Target Fee shall be reduced by 2% for each SLA for each month in which the contractor failed to meet the Minimum Acceptable SLA performance levels during the evaluation period. Please specify the maximum target fee price reduction?

The target fee cannot be reduced below $0.

RFP RFP CLIN 0001 ITMO/Service Provider Transition IOC appears to only cover ITMO transition.

Where should we include the cost for the service desk transition effort?

Service desk transition is not separately priced and should be amortized over the price of the service desk in CLINs X0003, X004 and X005.

RFP The current EITC contract for Service Desk ends 31 March 2011 according to documentation provided. The CLINs for service desk for this contract start 1 April 2011. Is this the government’s intention to have a separate contract with the existing contractor for a phase out period of 90 days? This will facilitate knowledge transfer and mitigate SOCOM’s transition risk.

The Government does not intend to issue a separate contract for phase out services?

RFP Wave 2 contracts that will transition Service Areas 2, 3, and 4 are anticipated to start in Jan 2011 which is 3 months after projected ITSM contract start. However, Service Area Transition Management (PWS 7) support and CLIN 1002 are not expected to start until 1 April 2011.

• Is the government expecting the ITSM contractor to provide Service Area Transition planning, coordination, integration support for WAVE 2 prior to 1 Apr 2011 (contract start + 6 months)?

• Will government consider adding scope and pricing matrix for PWS 7 to CLIN 0000 or accelerating CLIN 1000 to begin simultaneously with CLIN 0000 at 1 Oct 2010 (contract start)?

The ITSMC will be required to perform transition services throughout the entire contract period.

Yes – they will be required.

The government believes the current CLIN structure covers all activities related to service transition management for all phases of the contract.

RFP Wave 3 contracts that will transition Service Areas 5, 6, and 7 are anticipated to start in Apr 2011 which is 6 months after projected ITSM contract start. However, Service Area Transition Management (PWS 7) support and CLIN 1002 are not expected to start until 1 April 2011.

• Is the government expecting the ITSM contractor to provide Service Area Transition planning, coordination, integration support for WAVE 3 prior to 1 Apr 2011 (contract start + 6 months)?

• Will government consider adding scope and pricing matrix for PWS 7 to CLIN 0000 or accelerating CLIN 1000 to begin 3 months prior to EITC contract expiration?

See response to previous question.

RFP RFP CLINs 1004, 2004, 3004, 4004, 5004, 6004 all refer to Service Desk but reference PWS 4.6 and 11. Neither of these PWS Sections/paragraphs are present in the released RFP Attachment 1 PWS .

• Did the government intend to refer to PWS 8.0?

The government will revise the reference in the CLINs to the correct PWS paragraphs.

Attachment 9 Attachment 9 Pricing CLINs do not include CIO support during the 6-month transition (CLIN 0000) but the “CIO Support Labor Cat” worksheet has 6 month Transition labor categories listed.

• Can government please clarify if CIO Support is to be included in 6 month transition?

There is no requirement for CIO Support transition period. The CIO Support Lab Cat worksheet will be updated.

PWS Page 19 Para 6.0 “The ITSM Contractor shall transition SIE functions, services, and system administration without causing any disruption to operations or customer service.”

It is clear that ITSM Contractor will transition and operate the Service Desk as part of PWS 7.1 and 8.

It is our understanding that ITSM Contractor will NOT perform the transition and operate the other six service areas in WAVE 2 and WAVE 3, but to provide transition coordination, support and integration for WAVE 2 and WAVE 3.

• Can government please clarify PWS statement above?

That is correct. The ITSM will be required to support the transition of IT Service Providers throughout the duration of the contract.

RFP and Attachment 9 The SIE Enterprise Architect and USSOCOM Enterprise Architect roles are identified on the Attachment 9 Pricing Matrix under the ITSMP Services Labor Category Worksheet, not in the CIO Support Labor Cat worksheet. However, the Enterprise Architecture roles and responsibilities are described in the RFP and Attachment 1 PWS under the J6/CIO and Component CIO Support services.

• Please clarify where Enterprise Architecture support roles and responsibilities should be defined and priced?

The ITSM pricing includes a SIE Enterprise Architect and USSOCOM Enterprise Architect labor categories based on the requirement for the ITSMC to support the systems architecture of the SIE. The Architecture requirements under the CIO Support Services is for compliance architectures. The pricing worksheet has been updated.

L.1.14 I-C Contract Forms and Certifications p.81

Are offerors to complete and return Section B along with Sections A and K and should the annual travel estimate of $40,000 in L.12 IV-E also appear in Section B?

A CLIN price is not required for the travel CLINs

H.16 (gs40 &41) This clause provides a check list of items the Government may provide in support of the successful offeror but no boxes are checked. Is this an oversight?

The clause is correct as written.

Sect I 252. 7001, FAR 252.225-7002,252.223-

These are example of clauses normally associated with acquisition of products. Would the Government consider deleting these clauses since this is a services acquisition?

Clauses related to the acquisition of supplies have been deleted.

FAR 52.228-7, Sect I ( Pg.

44 )

The cost of this insurance requirement is an allowable cost. The issue is if a claim is not fully satisfied by the insurance, the Government is seeking permission to represent the contractor in order to settle and take charge of the claim. The contractor’s recovery will be dependent on the subsequent appropriated funds even though the Government was controlling the process.

Would the Government consider sharing this liability?

The Government will not share liability except as provided in the clause.

M.1.2 Evaluation pg 95 Would the government consider disclosing the details of the evaluation process?

The government has provided adequate details of the evaluation process in Section M. Further details will not be published.

H.6 Ordering CLINS (page32)

Does the Government intend to issue a single order for each of these CLINs or to issue multiple orders for different periods of time or for different functions within each CLIN?

If multiple orders will be issued what criteria will be used in determining how many orders will be issued?

The government may issue multiple orders against the CLINs.

Determination will be based on funding availability.

Incentive Fee Section I p.47

Will the incentive fee determination take place at the end of each CLIN’s performance period or will it be done at the end of the contract period?

Section G has been modified to provide instructions on the payment of the incentive fee.

Sect L 52.215-20 (pg. 91), 52.215-20, Alt IV,( pg. 92) 5652.215-9010 (pg.93)

The RFP contains three different variations of the clause. It is our understanding that the Government intends to make the award based on adequate price competition and the requirement for submission of cost or pricing data does not apply based on the provisions of FAR 15-403-(c) (1)

As indicated in 52.215-20 Alt IV and 5652.215-9010. Cost and Pricing Data are not required. However information other than cost and pricing data is required to determine cost realism and reasonableness.

Standard Form 33 Block 12

pg. 1

The RFP does not state a specific validity period. The standard 60 day period may not be sufficient to cover the period between submission and award. Please advise if offerors should propose a validity period of greater than 60 days.

The RFP has been revised to include the validity period.

RFP Attachments 7 and 9 (Service Desk Unit Pricing Tab) No page reference

Both references provide tables for the completion of Service Desk Unit Pricing. However, they refer to different user number ranges. For example, the low end of the first range of the Attachment 7 table shows 30,000 monthly users, whereas the low end of the first range in the Attachment 9 “Service Desk Unit Pricing” tab is 40,000 monthly users.

Question: Please clarify if the two documents should match in terms of the ranges presented and which offerors respond to?

Attachment 7 will be corrected to match Attachment 9.

Attachment 9 ITSMP Services Labor Category Tab (No page reference)

These instructions in the context of the pricing structures set forth in the Attachment 9 Worksheets entitled “ITSMP Services Labor Cat” and “CIO Support Labor Cat” pose limitations to those offeror’s with cost accounting structures that differ from those presented in Attachment 9 or who intend to use of multiple cost centers with differing rates. In addition, the worksheets “ITSMP Services Labor Cat” and “CIO Support Labor Cat” do not provision for the inclusion of subcontractor labor costs, burden factors or on and off site rate differential. Given the diversity of the disclosed practices of the offering community responding to this RFP, it is recommended that the Government allow offerors to make the necessary adjustments to Attachment 9 Pricing Matrix to ensure compliance with their disclosed practices.

The offerors may make the necessary adjustments to Attachment 9 to ensure compliance with their disclosure practices.

Attachment 9 & Section L Para 1.13 Volume IV – Cost/Price Proposal A – Overview and Explanatory Narrative Notes (No page reference)

Depending upon an offeror’s disclosed practice, off-site facility costs are recovered either via an indirect rate structure or as an other direct cost (direct charge facilities). Accordingly, please specify how on and off site costs should be factored into the Attachment 9 Spreadsheet since no provision for this delineation exists and changes to the spreadsheet are prohibited.

The offerors may make the necessary adjustments to Attachment 9 to ensure compliance with their disclosure practices.

Attachment 9 “CIO Support Labor Cat” tab (No page reference)

The embedded table calculations assume that the escalation is a constant for all contract periods. However this may not be the case.

For example, depending on the timing of the offerors accounting periods in relation to the Government’s contract periods, the escalation for the base period may differ from the escalation in subsequent periods.

Question: how should offerors reflect escalation consistent with their disclosed accounting practices in the Attachments 9 tables

The embedded calculations for escalation in Attachment 9 have been removed. Offerors are now required to input rates for each year.

H.6 Ordering Procedures (Page 32)

We believe that the reference to FPIF targets should be changed to CPIF targets. Please confirm.

The reference will be changed to CPIF.

Section L 1.12 Table IV-C

Can the Government provide an example of the incremental relationship of bronze silver and gold service desk pricing?

The SLA(s) included in the Performance Measurement Attachment provide incremental relationship requirements for Gold, Silver, and Bronze pricing.

RFP Clauses H.1, H.10 H-13

How should offerors consider costs for OCONUS travel discussed in these clause and other clauses throughout the RFP?

Can the Government provide an estimate of the frequency and duration of OCONUS travel?

There is little if any OCONUS travel expected under the ITSM contract. If OCONUS travel occurs it will be covered by the cost CLINs of the contract.

Section I Clause 52.216-11 Cost Contract – No Fee

It is our belief that this clause applies only to clauses 1006, 2006, 3006, 4006, 5006, and 6006. Please confirm.

Correct, 52.216-11 applies only to the travel CLINs.

1. Sect J Attachment 9 tab (no page reference)

2. RFP Section M Para

1.6.1 (pg. 99)

3. 1.6.1.3 (Cost Price Realism Assessment) (pg.99)

CLINs X003, X004 and X005 Service Desk pricing provides no mechanism to extend pricing to yield a single extended pricing amount for these CLINs. How should offerors calculate the extended pricing amounts to be entered in Sect. B and, how will the Government calculate the extended pricing for these CLINs for the purposes of evaluation?

The contractor will only need to provide unit prices. The Government estimated number of users will be used to calculate the most probable cost.

Section M.16.2 Probable Cost PC (pg.99)

These paragraph references do not appear in the RFP. Can the Government clarify if these reference paragraphs were omitted or otherwise provide the correct references?

The government has corrected the references.

RFP Section M.1.6.2 Probable Cost PC and Attachment 9 Pricing Matrix “CLIN” (pg.99)

Can the Government provide the user requirement quantities to be used by the Government to extend offeror’s proposed monthly unit service prices to establish the evaluated price pursuant to Section M.1.6.2?

The contractor will only need to provide unit prices. The Government estimated number of users will be used to calculate the most probable cost.

Section G Contract Administration Data (pg.

30)

This section usually includes all invoicing and payment terms applicable to the resultant contract. Please clarify why these terms were omitted; or provide the missing terms?

A clause has been added to Section G to provide terms for payment of Fee. All other invoicing and payment terms are covered by the clauses in the contract. Please see clauses 52.216-7 Allowable Cost and Payment, 52.232-1 Payments, DFARS 252.232-7003 Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports, and H.6 Ordering Procedures.

RFP Section L – Volume IV – Cost/Price Proposal Instructions

Cost/Price Proposal Instructions as presented do not include instructions for subcontractor pricing.

Can the Government provide specific instructions on subcontractor pricing requirements (if any).

The offerors may make the necessary adjustments to Attachment 9 to ensure compliance with their disclosure practices.

Section J Attachment 9 CIO Support Labor

Cell C24 of the referenced tab contains an input field for “Annual Growth Rate”, which further escalates the costs in the option periods at the total cost row. This calculation appears to duplicate the escalation factor applied to the individual labor rate calculations.

Question: Please clarify the Government’s purpose or intent in providing this additional escalation/growth factor.

The embedded calculations for escalation in Attachment 9 have been removed. Offerors are now required to input rates for each year.

Performance work Statement Section 8.1 Service Desk Single Point of contact Services (SPOC), Page 89#5 in the ‘Defined Roles and Responsibilities’ table, Does the government mean by the entry “Install and configure software and hardware needed to collect, track, manage, and report status and activity for service requests and Service Desk incidents received by the Service Desk” that this requirement would be performed and priced under the fixed price user(s) scenario or would it be a separate project?

Item have been changed to read, “Collect, track, manage, and report status and activity for service requests and Service Desk incidents received by the Service Desk”.

SF 33 Sect A Block 9 Pg.1 In consideration of the volume of the number of questions, particularly about the pricing model, would the Government consider extending the due date to allow the Government time to develop a response and provide time for the offerors to react to potential changes in the pricing requirements?

The proposal due date has been ammended.

Section 8.1 Service Desk Management Services of the PWS page 92

Can the Government confirm that the operational maintenance and update to the tools like Remedy would be provided and maintained by the Government? Can the Government confirm that under the fixed price user(s) scenario, the vendors are only responsible for recommendations, coordinating and supporting this effort with operational and maintenance service desk tools?

The government will provide the tool, but it will be maintained by the provider. Any updates/upgrades will be the responsibility of the provider.

Section 8.1 Service Desk Management Services of the PWS page.92

Can the Government confirm that the IVR would be provided and maintained by the Government. Can the Government confirm that under the fixed price user(s) scenario, the vendors are only responsible for the configuration of the IVR tool?

IVR System will be provided by and maintained by the Government with the ITSMC responsible for the configuration.

Section 8.0 Service Desk Management Services of the PWS

Can the Government confirm that the Microsoft System Center Configuration Center Manager hardware and software would be provided and maintained by the Government? Can the Government confirm that under the fixed price user(s) scenario, the vendors are only responsible for the configuration of the Microsoft System Center Configuration Center Manager tool?

Yes – the software will be provided by the Government. Provider is responsible for configuration and monitoring.

Section 8.1 Service Desk Management Services of the PWS page 92

Can the Government confirm that the Remedy hardware and software would be provided and maintained by the Government.

Can the Government confirm that under the fixed price user(s) scenario, the vendors are only responsible for entering data into the tool? (i.e.