Attachment 11 - Questions_and_Answers 12 Jan 11.pdf

PDF 255 KB Posted Jan 13, 2011

Attached to: SITEC Specialty Services Support for USSOCOM
Solicitation number: H92222-10-R-0044
Issued by: United States Special Operations Command

About this file

From the source

Atch 11 RFP Questions Answers

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Attachment 8 - 75 RGR SOO Package 19 Jan 2011.doc	DOC document	Jan 19, 2011
Attachment 11 - Questions_and_Answers 18 Jan 11.doc	DOC document	Jan 19, 2011
AMD 0003 mod doc 19 Jan 2011.doc	DOC document	Jan 19, 2011
H92222-10-R-0044 0003 conformed thru AMD 0003.doc	DOC document	Jan 19, 2011
H92222-10-R-0044-0002 13 Jan conformed copy.pdf	PDF	Jan 14, 2011
Attachment 1 - Section C Specialty Services PWS V 2.1.pdf	PDF	Jan 13, 2011
H92222-10-R-0044-0002 13 Jan 2011.pdf	PDF	Jan 13, 2011
Attachment 7 - Contract Data Requirements List - Spec Serv 3 Jan 2011.pdf	PDF	Jan 13, 2011
Attachment 8 - 75 RGR SOO Package 12 Jan 2011.pdf	PDF	Jan 13, 2011
Attachment 9 - SOCCENT SOO Package 12 Jan 2011.pdf	PDF	Jan 13, 2011
Attachment 6 - DD254 Contract Security Classification Specification 3 Jan 2011.pdf	PDF	Jan 13, 2011
Attachment 4 - Value Engineering Program 3 Jan 2011.pdf	PDF	Jan 13, 2011
Attachment 10 - SOCPAC-JSOTFP SOO Package 12 Jan 2011.pdf	PDF	Jan 13, 2011
Attachment 2 - SLAs 3 Jan 2010.pdf	PDF	Jan 13, 2011
Attachment 5 - Exit Plan 3 Jan 2011.pdf	PDF	Jan 13, 2011
memo extending closing date.pdf	PDF	Jan 10, 2011
H92222-10-R-0044 0001.pdf	PDF	Dec 17, 2010
Attachment 8 - 75 RGR SOO Package.pdf	PDF	Dec 17, 2010
Attachment 2 - Sample SLAs 10 Nov 2010.pdf	PDF	Nov 24, 2010
Attachment 11 - SS Draft RFP Q A.pdf	PDF	Nov 24, 2010
Attachment 5 - Exit Plan _2 Sep 10_.pdf	PDF	Nov 24, 2010
Attachment 3 - Policy References and Guidance _10 Aug 10_.pdf	PDF	Nov 24, 2010
Attachment 4 - Value Engineering Program _10 Aug 10_.pdf	PDF	Nov 24, 2010
Attachment 10 - SOCPAC-JSOTFP SOO Package.pdf	PDF	Nov 24, 2010
Attachment 8 - Site R SOO Package.pdf	PDF	Nov 24, 2010
H92222-10-R-0044 Spec Services.doc	DOC document	Nov 24, 2010
Attachment 9 - SOCCENT SOO Package.pdf	PDF	Nov 24, 2010
Attachment 7 - SS CDRLs.pdf	PDF	Nov 24, 2010
Attachment 6 - DD254 SS Con Security Class Spec _01 Oct 10_.pdf	PDF	Nov 24, 2010
Attachment 1 - Specialty Services PWS V1.11 - 11.10.10.pdf	PDF	Nov 24, 2010
Attachment 8 - Specialty Services TO 1.pdf	PDF	Sep 11, 2010
Attachment 3 - Policy References and Guidance _10 Aug 10_.pdf	PDF	Sep 11, 2010
Attachment 5 - Exit Plan _2 Sep 10_.pdf	PDF	Sep 11, 2010
Attachment 4 - Value Engineering Program _10 Aug 10_.pdf	PDF	Sep 11, 2010
H92222-10-R-0044 SITEC Specialty Services.pdf	PDF	Sep 11, 2010
Attachment 10 - Questions and Answer Format 09 Sep 10.doc	DOC document	Sep 11, 2010
Attachment 9 - Specialty Services TO 1 SLAs.pdf	PDF	Sep 11, 2010
Attachment 1 - Specialty Services PWS V1.10 - 09.09.10.pdf	PDF	Sep 11, 2010

Show all 38

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

H92222-10-R-0044 Attachment 10 - Questions and Answers Format

12 Jan 2011

SOCOM SPECIALTY SERVICES RFP

QUESTION

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH / PAGE

Questions / Comments

Response

Action

1 Section C/5.7 Transition

Processes/Plan /Page 22

The Proposal will require a Transition Plan. In order to write a meaningful plan the following information will be required. Who is the current incumbent?

The incumbent is L3 on the

EITC contract.

N/C

2 Section C/5.7 Transition

Processes/Plan /Page 22

Are there more than one incumbent? Who are they? L3 is the only incumbent. N/C

3 Section C/5.7 Transition

Processes/Plan /Page 22

How many Task Orders are currently active? Approximately 20 active task orders under the EITC contract will be transitioned to the Specialty Services contract.

N/C

4 Section C/5.7 Transition

Processes/Plan /Page 22

Where are the active Task Orders being implemented? CONUS, OCONUS etc.?

Both CONUS and OCONUS. N/C

5 Section C/5.7 Transition

Processes/Plan /Page 22

How many employees are currently being used by the incumbent/s?

Current EITC task orders are posted in the Bidder’s

Library.

N/C

6 Section C/5.7 Transition

Processes/Plan /Page 22

What Task Orders by Task Order type are currently active? EITC task orders are nearly all Labor Hours type tasks. A very small percentage of TOs are cost type and fixed price.

N/C

7 Section C/5.7 Transition

Processes/Plan /Page 22

How many employees by Task Order are currently being employed by the incumbent/s?

Current EITC task orders are posted in the Bidder’s

Library

N/C

SECTION /

8 Section C/5.7 Transition

Processes/Plan /Page 22

In 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 how many Task Orders were issued?

The historical information for each year is not available.

Approximately 20 active task orders under the EITC contract will be transitioned to the Specialty services contract

N/C

9 Section C/5.7 Transition

Processes/Plan /Page 22

In 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 what was the value of the Task

Order in dollars?

All available information on previous task orders is posted in the SITEC library.

N/C

10 SOCPAC JSOTF-P SOO

Package

SITE R SOO Package

SOCCENT SOO Package

Can the Government provide more detailed historical labor requirements or cost information regarding the current EITC task orders that the Specialty Services task orders are intended to replace?

All available information on previous task orders is posted in the SITEC library.

N/C

11 SOCPAC SOO Since the SOCPAC SOO requirements are significantly longer than the other two SOOs, would the Government consider increasing the page limits on the PWS to ensure that bidders have enough space to account for all of the SOO requirements in addition to contractor innovations and enhancements?

The government is committed to its page limitations.

N/C

12 RFP, H92222-10-R-0044,

952.225.0011 Government

Furnished Contractor

Support, page 16 of 74

Will the Government confirm that it will provide no support to

U.S. citizen contractor personnel traveling OCONUS in support of task orders awarded under this contract, including billeting, military air transport and resuscitative care? If so, would the

Government reconsider and provide such support?

Support is described in

Section H clause 952.225-

SECTION /

13 Pricing Will the Government provide a pricing template to be used for the three task orders, or should each Offeror supply its own pricing format?

Offerors should provide their own format that complies with Sections L&M of the

RFP.

N/C

14 SOCPAC JSOTF-P SOO/

Paragraph 10/Page 22 of

SITE R SOO Package –

Attachment 8/Paragraph

10/Page 5 of 15

SOCCENT SOO Package –

Attachment 9/Paragraph

9/Page 10 of 20

And

Attachment 11 – Question and Answers dated

November 12, 2010 , Question and Answer #10

Referenced section states: “All Positions in support of this Task

Order are considered key positions. As such, Contractor shall submit Resumes for all new and replacement candidates proposed.” The requirement to provide a resume for each position puts all potential new offerors at a disadvantage in favor of the current incumbent. In addition, even if each new Offeror provides a resume for each position on each task order (for

SOCPAC ~51 2 page resumes), it is unrealistic for the Government to expect that all proposed personnel will actually be available by the beginning of the TO POPs. This is disadvantageous to the

Government because, due to the time delay between RFP responses (in January) and Task Order POP start (April), it creates a false expectation of the personnel who will be actually be available at task order inception. In addition, the Government will be in the position of having to evaluate a set of resumes for proposed replacement personnel, a time consuming process for the Government managers and Contracting Office. Would the

Government consider redefining the key positions in each of the three initial task orders to minimize the Resume requirement to include only the Task Lead and Technical Team leads or would the Government be willing to permit the offerors to define and to justify their own key positions?

Additionally, are resumes excluded from Task Order response page count?

Key positions are revised to read for each task: the site lead, service desk lead, IA lead, networks lead, data center lead, distributed computing lead and application management lead. Critical personnel will not require a resume.

Resumes do not count against the page count.

Clause updated.

Section L updated.

SECTION /

15 RFP Section L III – Past

Performance/Page 65 of 74

Attachment 11 – Draft RFP

Question and Answers dated November 12, 2010, Question and Answer 75

A question was asked in regards to the draft RFP (question 75 in

Attachment 11) if the page limit for the Past Performance

Information Sheets could be increased given that the draft RFP allocated 50 pages for the Past Performance Volume. In response, it was stated that the fifty pages accounted for the

Table of Contents, Summary describing the role of the Offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, Past Performance Information Sheets and the

Completed SF 294s/295s. However, with the final RFP the page limit for Volume III was reduced to thirty (30) pages with the same requirements. Based on the offeror’s experience, each SF

294/295 typically takes 3-4 pages per form due to the extensive contractual information included and is typically outside of page count. If 5 past performance references are cited, the SF

294/295s will take 15-20 pages of the allotted 30 pages. This leaves 10-15 pages for the remainder of the volume, which limits the Offeror’s ability to provide substantive information on each past performance. Please confirm whether the SF 294/295s are now outside of page count due to the reduction in pages allowed for Volume III.

SF 294s and 295s are not included in the page limit.

N/C

16 Solicitation

Document/5652.237-

9001(c)/page 52

The Government identified Office Chief as a key personnel requirement. However in questions 91 and 92 of the Q&A document, it is said that this requirement has been removed.

Since it is in the final RFP, can the Government confirm that this is no longer a key personnel requirement?

Office Chief has been deleted.

RFP clause revised.

SECTION /

17 Solicitation

Document/H.6.2/page 23

Since the Government will require that successful offerors must submit a bid on every task order request, can the Government provide a forecast of the number of task order requests to be issued during the base contract period for planning purposes?

There will be approximately

20 task orders issued during the base contract period.

N/C

18 IDIQ PWS/Paragraph 5.7.1, Phase In-Period/Page 22 of

The Phase in period is defined as time of Award (approximately

15 JAN 11) to 01 April 11. Given the submission of proposals is on 03 JAN 11, would the Government consider addressing a new phase in period?

Award of the Specialty

Services basic contracts will be made a soon as possible before 31 Mar 2011 to allow for as much transition time as possible.

N/C

19 RFP H92222-10-R-

0044/Section F/Page 7 of

CLIN 1001 and 1002 have a POP of 01 JAN 2011 – 31 MAR 2016.

Is it the Government’s intent to revise those dates at Contract

Award?

Award of the Specialty

Services basic contracts will be made as soon as possible before 31 Mar 2011 to allow for as much transition time as possible.

RFP revised to read

“1 Apr 2011 – 31 Mar

2016”

SECTION /

20 Instructions to Offerors

(ITO)

SOCCENT Information systems and Deployment support/Period and Place of

Performance

Place of performance states that SOCCENT TO work will be performed on site at SOCCENT, which encompasses 2 geographic locations (CONUS and OCONUS)

a. Can the Govt. clarify which is the OCONUS location? (assuming

CONUS is MacDill AFB in FL although not explicitly stated)?

b. Can the Govt clarify what Specific Requirements/Deliverables

(SECTION 3.0) are applicable to which site (OCONUS or CONUS) in order to assist us in appropriate staffing decisions? Or do we assume that all support functions/deliverables are required in both SOCCENT locations? (duplicate staffing for both locations?)

The OCONUS site is CFSOCC, Al Udeid, AB, Qatar. The

WAVE administrator is located at HQ SOCCENT.

Additionally, SOCCENT and

CFSOCC no longer require

UC3 support and only

CFSOCC requires Spyder video hub support. All other support functions/deliverables are required in both SOCCENT locations.

21 SOCCENT Information

Systems (IS) and

Deployment

Support/Section 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 & 3.7

In order to appropriately size the effort, can the Government provide additional information regarding current staffing levels, parameters (e.g., number of devices, number of projects, number of trouble tickets etc.), or effort for each of the network and system administration subtasks?

The number of network devices includes approximately 20 routers, 70 switches, 2500 active ports;

100 servers; 20-25 projects, and 250 concurrent trouble tickets.

N/C

22 Section 5.7.1.2 of PWS

Phase-in Period – Task

Orders Page 23

Does the Government have a specific timeframe to complete transition on the SOCCENT TO?

Transition shall be complete by 1 Apr 2011.

N/C

23 General Do the incumbent contractors have transition out responsibility under their current contracts?

Yes the EITC contractor has a transition out responsibility.

SECTION /

24 SOCCENT Information

Systems (IS) and

Deployment

Support/Section 3.4 –

Project Coordination

Requirements

In order to appropriately size the task, for telecommunication projects, please provide number of telecommunication projects, vendors for those projects, and distribution by site.

The organization is unable to provide specific numbers, but the scope will include new circuit actions, router/switch/server installations or upgrades, network expansion into new work areas, development and implementation of new management tools, and sustainment of current systems to comply with new

CYBERCOM requirements.

Vendors: include, but not limited to, NAVAIR, Cisco, NetApp; Microsoft

N/C

25 SOCCENT Information

Systems (IS) and

Deployment

Support/Section 3.1-

System Support

Requirements

Please specify the approved network performance suite of tools. Current network performance suite of tools includes Solarwinds, V1, Cisco Works, and Network

Analysis Module.

N/C

26 SOCCENT Information

Systems (IS) and

Deployment

Support/Section 3.2

Will the Government provide an inventory of all platforms to be reviewed for compliance with NIST and USSOCOM security guidelines?

Available information is posted in the Bidder’s

Library.

SECTION /

27 SOCCENT Information

Deployment

Support/Section 3.2.2

Please specify types of IDS/IPS used within the SOCCENT infrastructure.

CFSOCC has CSIDS provided by AFCENT

N/C

28 SOCCENT Information

Systems (IS) and

Deployment

Support/Section 3.1.8, 3.19

& 3.2.1

Please verify the desired coverage of Tier 3 support Sections

3.1.8, 3.1.9 & 3.2.1. Is any historical data available concerning volume and type of tickets? What are the core hours for Tier 3 support, and is on-call support required?

At HQ SOCCENT, Tier 3 support will be required 40 hrs/week, M-F, with capability of 10 hrs per week for surge. At CFSOCC, contractor personnel will work 6-7 days/72 hours per week. On average, on-call support is required for critical support 5-6 times per quarter.

No historical data is available concerning volume and type of Tier 3 tickets.

Core hours for Tier 3 support is; Tampa, 8hr, M-F with on-call support after duty hours;

for Qatar, 12 hr duty day, 6 days a week with on-call support after duty hours.

SECTION /

29 SOCCENT Information

Deployment Support/

Section 3.1

Will the Government provide modeling and simulation tools for

LAN/MAN/WAN design? Are there existing models that the

Government will provide?

No SOCOM modeling tool exists.

N/C

30 SOCCENT Information

Systems (IS) and

Deployment Support -

General

Will the Government clarify demarcation of responsibility between the SOCCENT TO and other service area provider activities, for example where the Enterprise Network contractor WAN/MAN/CAN/LAN responsibilities end and

Specialty Services

Contractor begins, etc.)?

At the time, the only demarcation concerns between Specialty Svc and the Unit Towers exists with

Enterprise Networks.

Enterprise Networks responsibility (as it relates to

SSEPs and SCAMPI Nodes) terminates on the LAN side of the premise router.

Attachment 2 /

Introduction and

Performance Incentive

Calculation

Attachment 2 references SLA and specific details related to

Performance Incentive calculation can be found in Appendix A.

Will the Government provide a copy of Appendix A?

The reference to Appendix A d has been removed.

Attachment 2 has been revised

Attachment 8 / page 6 “Period and Place of Performance: … Place of Performance is onsite. The Government anticipates this work to be performed on site at Site R, which encompasses three (3) geographic locations

(CONUS). …

Travel: Travel will be required both CONUS and OCONUS (to include Hazardous Duty Locations).”

Are there generalized CONUS geographic locations that can be disclosed?

Will the Government provide a percentage of work to be done in

CONUS/OCONUS locations so offerors can price appropriately

(i.e., Hazard/Hardship/DBA cost for OCONUS where appropriate?

The SOO and applicable attachments have been revised to provide specific organization and CONUS geographic locations.

SOO and applicable attachments have been revised.

SECTION /

Attachment 8, 9 and 10 All three ITOs for these attachments reference Historical Labor

Requirements – attachment 8 – EITC Task Order #859;

attachment 9 – EITC Task Order #929; and attachment 10 – EITC

Task Order #920. Will the government provide these task orders to contractors?

Current EITC task orders have been posted to the

Bidder’s Library.

Attachments 8, 9 and 10 The sample task period of performance is stated as I base year with 4 one-year options. Section B does not provide CLIN pricing per sample task or pricing per year. Is it the Government’s desire to receive one CPFF CLIN for one five-year period per sample task? Please clarify.

The task orders included in the RFP are not sample tasks

- they are real tasks that the

Government intends to exercise. The offerors shall provide a cost/price per task per year for the base year and each option year. After each year of performance the Government will have the option of exercising the task order option or recomplete the task among the multiple awardees.

Attachments 8, 9, 10 Are contractors expected to propose 100% of the costs for the named categories in 5652.237-9001 in our three proposals related to attachments 8, 9 and 10? Or, can we choose to propose a portion or even no hours of their time in the pricing for the three task orders? Please clarify.

100% of the personnel should be proposed in each task. PM and deputy not fully dedicated to task and shouldn’t be proposed in the task cost/price.

SECTION /

Attachments 8, 9, 10 Attachment 8 - Personnel 10.0, Attachment 9 – Personnel 9.0, and Attachment 10 – Personnel 10.0 specify that all positions supporting the Task Order are considered key positions. Page 52 of 74, 5652.237-9001 Key Personnel Requirements (c) specifies the Program Manager, Assistant/Deputy Program Manager and

Office Chiefs for USSOCOM Tampa, JSOC and TSOCs as key personnel

Are we to use only the slots named in the RFP for pricing attachments 8, 9 and 10?

Are all personnel proposed (at a contractor’s discretion) for attachments 8, 9 and 10 to be included in the key personnel clause after contract award?

How many resumes does the Government expect to see in the responses to each SOO?

See question 14 response. See question 14 answer.

Attachments 8, 9, 10 Efforts in OCONUS locations, especially those deemed Hazardous

Duty locations, have very unique costs in order to hire and retain employees. Can the Government specify exact countries and cities where performance will occur for each of the three sample tasks? Or are these types of costs (Hazardous Duty Pay, Hardship

Pay, etc.) included in the Government travel estimates in each of the three sample tasks?

These costs are included in the Government travel estimates.

Attachment 10 / Materials

7.9

Attachment 10, Materials 7.9 specifies that Contractors must include the cost of DBA. Attachments 8 and 9 do not mention

DBA. Should contractors include this cost in the pricing for all three tasks?

Yes N/C

Attachment 10 / 3.1.3

Table A / page 2

The paragraph references in the headers appear to have no correlation to the SOO paragraphs or the Section C PWS paragraphs. What do the numbers refer to?

Paragraph references have been removed.

SOCPAC SOO has been revised and will be included in a modification

SECTION /

40 Attachment 10 / 3.1.3 Attachment 10, 3.1.3 states that the contractor shall provide the capabilities articulated in Table A. Table A lists SOCPAC SITEC functions with respect to systems. Many of the systems listed do not have any functional requirements according to Table A in that they have no intersections with functions that contain an “X”.

However, elsewhere in the Attachment 10 SOO, some of those systems are stated as requirements with particular functions while others are not. What is the meaning of the “X” in Table A?

Systems/functions with no

“X” have been deleted.

SOCPAC SOO has been revised and will be included in a modification.

Attachment 10 / 5.0 Attachment 10 paragraph 5.0 Reports references CDRLs E013, E014 and E022. Attachment 7, CDRL master list includes only

CDRLs E001 - E012. Will E013, E014 and E022 be provided?

Please clarify.

References to CDRLs E013, E014, and E022, have been removed from Attachment

10.

SOO has been revised and will be included in

Section B / CLINs 1001 and

1002 / page 2

Are Contractors to leave the Max Amounts blank, insert “TBD” or include the price for the three sample tasks into the appropriate

CLIN? Please clarify.

The government will complete these amounts at contract award.

Section F / Delivery

Information / page 7

The RFP states the delivery period to be 1 January 2011 – 31

March 2016; Attachments 8, 9 and 10 have start dates of 1 April

2011; and section L.1.5 states contract award is 1 March. Please clarify the period of performance.

The ordering period for the contract will be 1 Apr 2011 –

31 March 2016. Task order performance periods will not coincide with the contract ordering period. The period of performance for each task order will be detailed in each

ITO.

Section H / 952.225-0011 /

Attachment 10 requires personnel to be assigned to Manila as a permanent duty station. What type of Government-furnished contractor support will be provided for those U.S. citizens supporting overseas deployment?

The Clause has been revised to indicate that no

Government-Furnished support will be provided.

RFP revised.

SECTION /

Section H / 6.2 / page 24 Since task order workload data is not available, is it the intent of the Government to have a rate table identifying labor categories to support each task order, or labor categories with numbers of personnel to support each task order?

If numbers of personnel are desired, when will the workload data be made available?

Each task order will be a performance based FFP or

CPFF order, The Government will not include labor rate tables in the task orders. The

Government does not desire numbers of personnel.

Section H / 6.2 / page 24 ;

Section M / 1.5 Factor 3/

H.6.2 states that “during the initial task order evaluations, since current task order past performance has not yet been demonstrated, all prime offerors will be given a neutral rating,” and M.1.5 Factor 3 provides evaluation criteria for past and present performance. Please clarify how past performance will be evaluated.

The section M criteria will be used to determine the offeror’s eligibility for contract award. All offerors will receive a neutral rating in the evaluation to determine the task order awardees.

Section I / 5652.237-9001 /

The referenced contract clause states that “certain experienced professional and/or technical personnel are essential for successful accomplishment of the work to be performed under this contract.” Additionally, “such personnel are defined as ‘Key

Personnel’ and are those whose resumes were submitted for evaluation of the proposal.” Subparagraph (c) identifies the

Program Manager, Assistant/Deputy Program Manager and

Office Chiefs as “Key Personnel”. Is it the intent of the

Government to review and evaluate resumes for all “Key

Personnel” positions with the proposal, or will the resumes be submitted for review and evaluation with subsequent task orders after the contract is awarded? If the intent is to review and evaluate key personnel with the proposal submission, will there be a CLIN assigned to capture the costs associated with these positions?

Offerors shall submit resumes for evaluation with their proposal. There will not be a CLIN assigned to capture the cost associated with non-task dedicated positions.

SECTION /

Section I / 5652.237-9001

The RFP includes this line where Key Personnel are identified:

“Office Chiefs for USSOCOM Tampa, JSOC and TSOCs” But in the

Q&As, the answer to question 91 states, “The Office Chief has been deleted from the RFP” and the answer to question 92 states, “The Office Chief has been removed from the clause.

Geographic location of the other positions should be predicated on the offeror’s proposal approach.”

Please clarify how many key personnel resumes are required in response to Volume II requirements.

RFP has been revised to remove Office Chief, see question 14 response.

RFP has been revised to remove Office

Chief, see question

14 action.

Section I / c. / page 52 The RFP defines key personnel as the program manager, deputy program manager and office chiefs. In support of the sample task orders, many other positions will be needed. Is it the intent of the personnel description in attachments 8, 9, and 10 to identify every position as a key personnel and then hold these positions to the same requirements as described in Section I Key

Personnel?

See question 14 response. See

See question 14 action.

Section L / 1.5 / page 61 In the Section L to Section M Crosswalk Table, the Section M paragraph references are confusing. For example, M.1.3.1 –

Facility Clearance referenced in the table is actually Subfactor 1 –

Management Organizational Structure/Teaming

Arrangements/Key Personnel. Please clarify the intended crosswalk between Section L references and Section M references.

See question 85 response. See question 85

Section L / L.2 / page 63 Section H requires Section K to be submitted through ORCA;

section L requires section K to be completed and included within

Volume 1-C. Are both submittals necessary? Please clarify.

ORCA submittal is required for all offerors additional certifications that are not included in ORCA will need to be completed and submitted with the offeror’s proposal.

SECTION /

Section L / L.2 / page 65 Section L describes Volume III as Past Performance Information.

The crosswalk matrix describes Volume III as Past and Present

Performance Information, as does Section M. Section L titles the volume as Past Performance. Please clarify the Volume III title.

“and Present” will be deleted for consistency

RFP has been revised

Volume IV / IV-A / page 67 Volume IV Task Order Management, Technical. – The instructions state “The basis of estimate shall be detailed sufficiently to understand the Offeror’s approach …utilized to develop the

Offeror’s firm fixed price offer.” This Contractor believes that this section refers to the three sample tasks. If that is the case, can we assume that the language meant to specify CPFF rather than firm fixed price? If not, can you please clarify how Contractors are to provide basis of estimate details for a Firm Fixed Price offer?

The language has been revised for Clarity.

Section L / IV-B PWS / page

The RFP requires the contractor to develop and include a PWS for each sample task. Is it the Government’s intention to include this

PWS as part of the limit of 25 pages per sample task order response?

If yes, can we make tables of the SOO/PWS and the SDS and have those tables excluded from the page limit?

The government is commited to its page limits.

Offerors can make tables;

however, they are not excluded from page limitations.

Section M / 1.3.3 / page 71

M.1.3.3 Subfactor 3 - Transition Planning: Under this factor, the

Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to providing sound business processes, processes, and expertise in transitioning to the SITEC Specialty Services contract and service delivery environment.

The words “sound business processes” are followed by the word

“processes.” Is something missing? Please clarify.

The second “processes” has been deleted.

RFP has been revised.

SECTION /

Contract Clauses Does the U.S. Government have a Status of Forces Agreement

(SOFA) with the Philippines? Will SOFA protection be granted to

Contractor and Subcontractor personnel?

The US Government does not have a SOFA with the

Philippines for US personnel stationed in the Philippines, SOFA protection will not be granted to

Contractor/Subcontractor personnel.

Contract Clauses Request addition of DFAR 252.225-7043 Antiterrorism/Force

Protection Policy for Defense Contractors Outside the United

States.

The clause is already included in the contract. See sections H and I.

N/C

RFP Section B. There appear to be no CLINs for travel or ODCs. How will contractors invoice these items?

There will be no ODCs on this contract and travel will be included in the CPFF

CLINs or in the offerors fixed prices for task orders issued on a FFP basis.

SECTION /

RFP Section L, Pages 67, 68, and 69.

Page 67 Task Order Cost/Price states “Offerors shall submit supporting information required to evaluate prices;” Page 68 includes FAR 52.215-20 Alt IV, indicating that cost and pricing data is not required; and Page 68 contains clause 5652.215-9010

Cost and Pricing Data Not Required. Are we correct in assuming that the Government does not require pricing detail, i.e. direct labor and indirect rate breakouts, from subcontractors at this time?

The Government is requesting other than cost and pricing data as defined by the FAR. Offeror’s should provide sufficient data to allow the government to complete a cost realism analysis on the proposed costs, at a minimum the

Government will require labor hours and rates by category, overhead rates, G&A rates and proposed profit.

N/C

H92222-10-R-0044, Attachment 10, paragraph

5.0, CDRLS.

Attachment 7, CDRL Master

Set

Background: Atachment 10, 5.0 REPORTS (CDRLs). CDRLs E001, E002, E003, E004, E005, E008, E009, E010, E013, E014, and E022 apply to this SOO.

Attachment 7, CDRL Master Set, only lists CDRLs E001 through

E0012; E0013 through E0022 are missing.

Question: Could the Government please provide CDRLs E0013 through E0022?

References to CDRLs E013, E014, and E022 have been removed from Attachment

10.

SOCPAC SOO has been revised.

SECTION /

RFP, Section L, page 66, Volume IV – Task Order

Management and

Performance Work

Statement;

Attachment 11, Q&A, Question #5 response.

Background: The page allocation states, "25 pages per task order

ITO", confirmed by the response to quesiton #5 in Attachment

11. However, especially for Task Order 3, Attachment 10.

Responding to "IV-A – Task Order Management" and "IV-B –

Performance Work Statement" in 25 pages is not feasible. It will be especially difficult to develop a proper PWS for Task Order 3, "HEADQUARTERS SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND-PACIFIC

(SOCPAC) & JOINT SPECIAL OPERATIONS TASK FORCE-

PHILIPPINES (JSOTF-P)" that is 22 pages single spaced in that the

PWS is to be 1 1/2 line spacing.

Question: Will the Government consider expanding the page limit for contractor responses to Task Order 3 (Attachment 10) or, alternatively, can the PWS be submitted with single line-spacing?

The government is committed to its page limitations, SECTION /

RFP Attachments 8, 9, 10 Background: To allow for more accurate estimate of man power/staffing required to support each task order basis of estimate for both Volume IV.A and Volume V responses sufficient data is not available. The data needed is: Historical Labor

Requirements, WBS, Locations, and equipment supported for

EITC Task Orders #859, #929 and #920. The EITC TOs are listed in

RFP Attachments 8, 9 and 10, as follows:

- Attachment 8: Historical Labor Requirements: This requirement was currently being accomplished via EITC Task Order #859.

- Attachment 9: Historical Labor Requirements: This requirement was currently being accomplished via EITC

Task Order #929.

- Attachment 10. Historical Labor Requirements: This requirement was currently being accomplished via EITC Task

Order #920.

Question: Could the Government provide the following data for

EITC Task Orders #859, #929. and #920? This data is required to support each task order basis of estimate for both Volume IV.A and Volume V responses.

(1) Historical Labor Requirements, (2) WBS, (3) Locations, and (4) equipment supported with asset details (to include type, quantities, make and model to allow for more accurate estimate of man power/staffing).

Current EITC task orders have been posted to the

SECTION /

Volume IV, RFP

Attachments 8, 9, 10

Volume II, Key Personnel

(II.B), RFP, Section L, page

64 0f 74.

Background: Each of the Task Orders state that, "All positions in support of this Task Order are considered key positions. As such, contractor shall submit resumes for all new and replacement candidates proposed." We have estimated that 97 Key Personnel resumes are required (based on the Attachment 8. 9 and 10

Material Paragraphs, e.g., in Attachment 8 "7.0 MATERIAL. The

Government will provide necessary materials to complete this

Task Order. The government shall provide necessary office space for up to 14 contractor personnel".)

The Section II.B Key Personnel Resumes are limited to 2-pages each and are included in page count for Volume II.

Question: Are the resumes for the approximately 97 Volume IV

Key Personnel included in Volume IV page count, or can the Task

Order Key Personnel resumes be included as an attachment to

Volume IV and be outside of the 25 page allocation for each ITO response.

SECTION /

Volume IV, RFP

Attachments 8, 9, 10 (e.g., for Task Order 3, Attachment 10: "10.0

PERSONNEL. All positions in support of this Task Order are considered key positions. As such, contractor shall submit resumes for all new and replacement candidates proposed."

Background: Without details of the incumbent Task Order

Personnel positions and job discriptions, to include required qualifications; the incumbent contractor has an unfair advantage over other bidders.

Question: Will the Government provide Task Order Personnel positions and job discriptions, to include required qualifications to allow bidders to provide compliant responses.

Current EITC task orders have been posted to the

Bidder’s Library.

Current EITC task orders have been posted to the

Bidder’s Library.

RFP Attachment 11, Q&A, page 20, Question 92;

5652.237-9001 Key

Personnel Requirements paragraph c), page 52 and

Background: The response to question 92 states that, "The Office

Chief has been removed from the clause. …."

5652.237-9001 Key Personnel Requirements paragraph c) includes "Office Chiefs for USSOCOM Tampa, JSOC and TSOCs".

Question: Please clarify if the Office Chiefs will be removed from the RFP in an amendment to the RFP.

The Office Chief position now has been removed.

Will be revised in subsequent modification to RFP.

RFP, Attachment 10, paragraph 3.12, (page 18);

and DD-254 block10.a (page

27)

The Attachment 10 DD254 states in Block 10.a "COMSEC – NO";

Attachment 10, paragraph 3.12 requires COMSEC.

Question: Please clarify if COMSEC should be noted as "Yes".

Although Contractor will be maintaining COMSEC material on behalf of the government, they are not required to have a COMSEC

Account

SECTION /

67 H/952.225-0011/pg. 16 Government Furnished Contractor Support states: The following is a summary of the type of support the

Government will provide the contractor, on an “as-available” basis. In the event of any discrepancy between this summary and the description of services in the Statement of Work, this clause will take precedence.

The clause reflects “none” of the support items.

Question: For contractor support to deployed/hazardous locations where medical/resuscitative care, meals and billeting are not readily available, what are the expectations for deployed contractor staff?

Government provided support is described in

Section H clause 952.225-

See question 12

68 Section H, 952.225-0003

(d)/pg. 15 and Attachment

10 SOCPAC and JSOTF-P

Section G states that routine and primary medical care is not authorized. For the SOCPAC and JSOTF-P task order, will contractor personnel that are deployed to the Philippines have access to routine medical care via Government facilities, or is it anticipated that contractor personnel will rely on the local economy for these needs?

Routine and Primary medical care is NOT provided or available via government facilities. Government provided support is described in Section H clause

952.225-0011.

N/C, see question 12 action.

69 Section I, 5652.237.9001 -

Key Personnel

Requirements/ pg. 52 of 74

This section defines Key Personnel as the Program Manager;

Assistant / Deputy Program Manager; and Office Chiefs for

USSOCOM Tampa, JSOC, and TSOCs. However, Attachment 11, Questions and Answers, November 12, 2010, Response to

Questions 91 and 92 reference that the Office Chief has been deleted from the RFP.

Can the government please clarify the Key Personnel

Requirements?

The Office Chief position now has been removed..

This has been revised in the RFP and will be included in a subsequent

SECTION /

70 Attachments 8, 9, and 10

ITOs

The RFP provides approximate dollar estimates for annual travel for each of the three task orders. Is it the Government’s intention to use these dollar estimates as plug numbers for travel, or does the Government anticipate Offerors to submit cost builds for travel? If cost builds are desired, please provide for each task order the estimated number of annual trips, number of persons per trip, number of days per trip, and locations.

The offerors are expected to include their travel estimate and apply overhead, G&A and fee consistent with their accounting practices.

Offerors may use the

Government estimate as a base before applying overhead, G&A and fee.

N/C

71 Attachments 8, 9, and 10 For estimating purposes, will the Government please provide the average number of personnel deployed OCONUS at any given time and the average deployment duration for each of the three task orders?

Atch 8 – Est 2 contractors deployed at any one time for an average length of 120 days.

Atch 9 & 10 – No historical information is available.

N/C

72 Attachments 8, 9, and 10 For transition purposes, will the Government provide the number of staff currently deployed in OCONUS and hazardous duty locations under the three existing EITC task orders?

Atch 8 – Currently 1 deployed

Atch 9 & 10 – No historical information is available.

N/C

73 Attachments 8, 9, and 10 Each ITO references an existing EITC task order number for historical labor requirements, yet the task orders were not provided with the procurement files and do not appear to be included in the bidder’s library. Was it the government’s intent to provide these task orders and, if so, how can we obtain them?

Current applicable EITC task orders have been posted in the Bidder’s Library.

N/C

74 Attachment 9 Will housing be provided as GFE for OCONUS deployed personnel?

See question 12 response. See question 12

SECTION /

75 Attachment 10 SOO

Paragraph 8.0

The SOO states, “The Contractor shall coordinate all movement of equipment and contractor personnel between the various

JSOTF-P sites and other destinations.” Is the Contractor’s role for this requirement limited to logistics coordination, or does this requirement include procurement of associated transportation/shipment materials and services to be direct charged to the contract?

Contractor’s roll is limited to logistics coordination. There is no CLIN available on this contract for offeror to be reimbursed for materials.

N/C

76 Attachment 10 Paragraph

1.0

The SOO states services include “Other Overseas Contingency

Operations” besides SOCPAC and JSOTF –P. Does the government want this addressed in management approach and/or technical approach or, should we limit response to

SOCPAC and JSOTFP. If so, does the government wish to provide a notional scope/location for a basis of comparison?

Offerors responses shall be limited to SOCPAC garrison and JSOTF-P support.

N/C

77 Attachment 10 Para 3.1.6 states

“All Contractors shall fall under the provisions of the Information

Assurance Workforce Improvement Program (DoD 8570) and must possess the required Information Assurance (IA) baseline certifications commensurate with their assigned duty position as determined by the government. (EX; IAT II, IAT III, IAM III, CND-

SP, etc.)” In order to develop an appropriate staffing plan and adequately prepare for contract transition, request the government provide a detailed listing of the duty positions associated with this task order and their required DoD 8570 certifications.

Proposals need to present staffing plan and propose

DoDI 8570 certification requirements for gov’t approval.

N/C

78 Attachment 10 Para 3.3.13 How many users, applications, servers, desk top computers, lap top computers, printers, and peripheral devices does the Help

Desk support for each network that the contractor will be required to operate and maintain in support of this effort?

All available information for this task is included in the

SECTION /

79 Attachment 10 Para 3.5.10

(Interbase Connectivity)

Is the design of future communications architecture in this paragraph intended for future locations only other than SOCPAC

HQ and JSOTF_P? Are there any additional locations in Japan or

Guam that are currently supported?

No, include architecture support at SOCPAC HQ and

JSOTF-P.

N/C

80 Attachment 10 Para 7.2

(Materials) –

The SOO states the government will provide necessary

“documentation” for the contractor to accomplish tasks as needed. Will this include protection under the Visiting Forces agreement between the government of the Philippines and the

US (analogous to SOFA)?

VFA does apply to contractors performing duties in the Philippines.

N/C

81 Attachment 9 GFE is provided for a maximum of 32 contractors. How many of the 32 will be at MacDill AFB and how many at CFSOCC?

This will be based on individual proposals.

N/C

82 Attachment 9 3.6 OCONUS Transition Plan. Can the government specify whose rotation schedule is referenced (e.g. all, military surges, contractor team, other)?

For OCONUS contractors at

CFSOCC.

N/C

83 Attachment 11 – Questions and Answers, November

12, 2010: Question 5. (2)

Section L.2 Proposal

Submission Requirements, Volume II – Past

Performance

Information/pg. 64

Question number 5 states the Past Performance Volume is limited to 50 pages. Section L.2, pg. 64 states the Past

Performance Volume is limited to 30 pages. We believe the correct limit is 50 pages based on the volume contents – Table of

Contents (1 page), Summary of Roles (1-2 pages), Past

Performance Citation Sheets (5 x 5 = 25 pages), and SF 294/295s

(5 x 4 = 20 pages). Please clarify the page limit.

Vol III limit is 30 pages, see question 15 response. SF

294/295s so not count against page limits

See question 15

SECTION /

84 Section H/Reference

952.225-0011/pg. 16

Government Furnished Contractor Support states: The following is a summary of the type of support the Government will provide the contractor, on an “as-available” basis. In the event of any discrepancy between this summary and the description of services in the Statement of Work, this clause will take precedence. The clause reflects “none” of the support items.

Government provided support is described in

Section H clause 952.225-

See question 12 action.

85 Section L.1/Crosswalk/

Pages 61 & 62

“Section L, Volume 1 – Responsibility Criteria/Section M, M1.3 –

Responsibility Criteria Overview”; There appears to be an error in the Section L/M Crosswalk, “Section L” is linked to “Section M.1.3

FACTOR 1 – Technical/Management.” Can the Government please correct this reference?

Section L has been revised for carity.

Section L& M revised.

86 Section M/M.1.2/Page 70 Was it the Government’s intention to exclude Volume 1 –

Responsibility Criteria as an Evaluation Factor?

Yes, the Federal Acquisition

Reg defines the requirements for determining responsibility.

The language was removed to reduce redundancy and ensure the RFP does not conflict with FAR requirements.

N/C

87 Section L.1/Crosswalk/ Page

The Section L/M Crosswalk references Section I-D as “Adequate

Accounting System” while on Page 63 Section I-D is referenced as

“Adequate Business Systems.” Can the Government please correct this to say “Adequate Business Systems?”

Adequate business systems is correct.

Section L revised.

SECTION /

88 L.2, Page 64; M.1.1 Page 70, M.1.2 Page 70, M.1.3 Pages

71 & 72 and Question 96

These sections still reference a “Technical/Management” approach. Should this be changed to “Program Management” as in the answer to Question 96?

This amendment has corrected the administrative error.

Revised to state

Program

Management.

89 L.1/Formats/Page 62 RFP states “Font size shall be Times New Roman or Arial, in no smaller than 10 point for text Spreadsheets, tables, and graphics…” Will the Government consider a font size of 8 point for graphics? This is consistent with previous SITEC RFPS and allows for more meaningful graphics presentations.

No, some offerors have already abused this allowance and written significant portions of their

SITEC proposals as tables which rendered them nearly illegible.

N/C

90 L.1/Formats/Page 62 RFP states “Font size shall be Times New Roman or Arial, in no smaller than 10 point for text Spreadsheets, tables, and graphics.” Will the Government consider a font size of 8 point for text Spreadsheets and tables? This is consistent with previous

SITEC RFPS.

No, some offerors have already abused this allowance and written significant portions of their

SITEC proposals as tables which rendered them nearly illegible.

N/C

91 Question 77 Government response “Volume IV limit is 25 pages per ITO” however, the government did not address the 2-page resumes be excluded from the total volume page count. Will you please exclude the TO resumes from the TO page count?

The government is committed to its page limitations. However, 2 pages per each resume will not count towards the page limit.

Section L revised.

92 Question 91 (Attachment

11) and RFP Page 52

In the Government response to question 91 states, “Office Chief has been removed from the RFP,” yet they still in the final RFP

(Page 52). Will the government please remove the reference to

Office Chiefs?

The Office Chief position now has been removed.

This has been revised and will be included in modification.

SECTION /

93 RFP B / n/a / Page 3

RFP G/ G.4 / Page 10

Attachment 11, Questions and Answers /Questions 40, 70, 145 / (unpaged)

CLIN 1003, Cost Reimbursable Travel, which was in the DRFP, is not in the final RFP. This is not consistent with the answers to the cited questions or Clause G.4 (for CPFF Task Orders). Will the

Government consider providing a CLIN that permits invoicing for

Cost Reimbursements without fee?

The CLIN 1003 reference has been removed.

CLIN 1003 reference remove from G4 and

CPFF TOs mentioned.

94 RFP F / Delivery Information

/ Page 7, RFP L / L1.5 / Page

61 Attachment 1, PWS /

5.7.1 / Page 22

Attachment 1, PWS /

5.7.1.1 / Page 22

The Period of Performance begins before proposals are due. Will the Government consider changing the POP to reflect the contract award date of March 1, 2011 and make consistent throughout H, L, M and the PWS?

See question 18 response. See question 18 action.

95 RFP L / L1.5 (Section L to

Section M Crosswalk Table)

/ Pages 61 and 62 RFP L /

L.2 / Pages 63-67 RFP M / all / Pages 70-74

The Section L to Section M Crosswalk table does not correspond to the factors or numbers in Sections L.2 and M. Will the

Government please correct this table to reflect the proper cross references between L and M?

The RFP has been revised to correct the administrative error.

Section L & M revised.

96 RFP L / L.2 IV-A/Page 67 Will the Government please change the reference to the “SOW” to the “ITO?”

SOW has been changed to

SOO.

Revised Section L.

97 Attachment 1, PWS / 1.0

Paragraphs 7 and 8 / Page 4

Will the Government please change the 4 instances of reference to the “SOW” to “PWS?”