Attachment 13 App Mgt Q and A _15 Feb 11_.pdf

H92222-10-R-0046

Attachment 13 – App Mgt Questions and Answers

***Not to be included in any resultant contract***

15 February 2011

SOCOM APPLICATION MANAGEMENT RFP

SECTION / PARAGRAPH /

PAGE

Questions / Comments Response (TBD) Action (TBD)

1 RFP Section B, paragraph

B.1

States “The contract maximum is $65,000,000.00.” Paragraph M.1.1 states “The Government intends to award a minimum of 3 and maximum of 5 prime awards as a result of this solicitation……” Is the contract maximum figure of $65,000,000.00 applicable to each award or is it the maximum total value for all awards made as a result of this solicitation?

The amount is the expected value of all awards. However, the maximum for contractual purposes will be as stated in the individual contracts.

N/C

2 RFP Section B, CLIN

DELIVERY/TASK ORDER

MINIMUM/MAXIMUM

QUANTITY AND CLIN ORDER

VALUE,

States “The maximum quantity and order value for the given

Delivery/Task Order issued for this CLIN….” (emphasis added). Does this mean there will only be one task order issued for each CLIN or does this mean there will be multiple task orders issued against each CLIN but no individual task order may exceed the values shown?

The Government may award multiple task orders awarded against all CLINs The Government did not intend to include minimum and maximum order restrictions at the

CLIN level. The contract minimum and maximum values are stated in clause B.1. Order limitations are included in

52.216-19 “Order

Limitations”

Deleted the clause on page 4 and added limitations to clause 52.216-19.

3 RFP Section H, paragraph

H.6, page 11

Paragraph H.6 states “Government intends to award initial contract solicitation task orders based on task proposals submitted with the contract proposal shortly after the prime awards are made and further discussions are not anticipated for these initial awards.” Paragraph H.6.2 states “Contractors shall submit a proposal for every requirement solicited without conflict unless granted a waiver in advance by the

Contracting Officer.” The paragraph H.6.2 requires the contractor to maintain a bid response capability. SOW paragraph 5.4 requires a performance management plan “at both the contract and task order level”. SOW paragraph 5.6 requires submission of monthly report at the basic contract level independent of any specific task order. SOW paragraph 5.71.1 contains requirements for a contract phase –in period separate from any task order phase-in period. Will one of the initial

No, there is no intent to award a separate task order for contract management.

N/C contract solicitation task orders cover the management of the basic contract?

4 RFP Section H, paragraph

H.11, subparagraph (c), States “Prior to subcontracting work under this contract the contractor shall determine if the proposed subcontractor is performing work under other SITEC unit-based service areas.” This subparagraph addresses OCI mitigation plans for subcontracting under this solicitation. Is an OCI mitigation plan required for a contractor who is bidding this solicitation as a prime and is also bidding as a prime or subcontractor on one or more of the other SITEC unit-based service areas?

Yes – OCI mitigation plans will be required for any proposal which includes a prime or sub who is also participating in another contract under the SITEC umbrella.

N/C

5 RFP Clause 52.216-18, paragraph (a), States “Such orders may be issued from Contract Award through 31

March 2013.” RFP Section F lists the period of performance for all CLINs as 1 Jan 2011 – 31 Mar 2016. Clause 52-216-22 states this is an IDIQ effective for the period stated in schedule B. What is the latest date a task order can be issued?

The ordering period is contract award through

31 March 2013. The period of performance for each task order will be established by the order.

Section F and clauses

52.216-22 have been revised for clarification.

Revised in PD2 and the draft

Document

6 RFP Clause 5652.237-9001, paragraph (c), page 46

Lists as key personnel “Lead Individual for each Service Area under SOW

Paragraph 5.1”. SOW paragraph 5.1 states the Application Management

Services Contractor(s) must provide services for: IT Service Management, IT Service Management, Application Development, and Application End-

User Training. Please confirm that these are the Service Areas referred to in Clause 5652.237-9001 paragraph (c).

The key personnel clause has been revised to clarify the key personnel requirements.

Corrected

7 RFP Section L, paragraph

1.5, page 56

States “Teaming arrangements in which Prime Offerors participate as a subcontractor/team member with another Prime Contractor on multiple proposals are not authorized under this solicitation” Do the teaming arrangements referred to in this paragraph pertain just to teaming for this Applications Management solicitation or to teaming for other SITEC solicitations as well?

Yes, this sentence pertains to the App Mgt solicitation

N/C

8 RFP Section L, paragraph

1.6, page 56

States “The Offeror’s proposal shall be based on an ordering period of five years.” Paragraph M.1.7 states “The task order cost/price proposal evaluation will consider the basic price and all option year prices for a total price for each task order. The USSOCOM will roll up subfactor prices into an overall total price for the overall factor price.” The one task order

SOO in attachment 7 only has a one year period of performance. How is the offeror’s cost proposal to be based on an ordering period of five

Offerors may be required to provide option prices for task orders. Section M has been revised to provide clarification.

Corrected years when the only defined pricing period to be included in the cost proposal is only for the first year of the five year ordering period?

9 RFP Section L, Paragraph

1.7 (Proposal Submission

Requirements Matrix), Volume III (Past

Performance Information), Section III-A (Reference

Data and Relevant

Experience), page 60

The allocated page count for this volume is 40 pages. This volume is limited to five Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheets, at no more than five pages for each contract reference. There is no page allocation for the front matter (Table Of Contents; Summary Page) and SF 294/295 exhibit(s).

At 25 pages for all Past Performance Information sheets (five contract references, five pages each); the remaining page count is 15 pages, which would comprise the Table Of Contents, the Summary Page, and the SF

294/295 exhibit(s).

Recommend increasing the page allocation for each PPI from five pages to eight pages (total 40 pages) and exclude the Table of Contents, Summary Page, and SF 294/295 from the page count.

Past performance page limitations have been revised.

Section L revised.

10 RFP Section L, Vol. IV, page

Regarding the 3 Task Orders, the technical solution, management approach, and pricing of these are clearly critical to the proposal evaluation. Yet, the draft RFP does not include any description of TO #2 and TO #3. In the event that the remaining task orders are similar to existing projects being performed by the incumbent contractor, this puts challengers at a significant disadvantage, in terms of the time available to review, understand, develop, and price the Task Orders. Will the remaining TOs be made available in draft form before the final RFP is issued?

The final RFP has all SOO packages attached.

N/C

11 RFP Section L, paragraph

1.7 Proposal Preparation

Instruction matrix Vol. V, part V-B, page 63

States “Specific Instructions Dependent on the Application Management

Task Order(s).” Attachment 7 SOO contains no specific instructions concerning task order pricing. RFP Section H paragraph 6.2 contains submission instructions for FFP and Cost task order Cost/price proposals.

In the absence of any specific pricing instructions in an Application

Management Task Order, is it correct to assume that the instructions in

Section H of the basic contract are the only guidance which applies?

The RFP has been revised to provide further clarification on the task order pricing.

12 RFP Section M.1.1, Assuming the contract maximum value ($65M) represents a combined value for as many as 5 awardees over 5 years, then the average annual value is approximately $2.6M. Given the necessary initial and downstream proposal development costs, it seems that the “Cost of

Sales” for Applications Management is particularly high, relative to the other towers. With no minimum guarantees, no additional information on the potential number of competitive TOs to be issued, the scope, the average value, or the schedule, it is difficult to develop a bid business case. Will the government provide information on the expected number and value of TOs to be competed among awardees?

The Application

Management contract is estimated to be approximately $22M per year. Individual task orders are estimated to range between $150K and $6M. The

Government does not have an estimated number of TOs at this time.

13 RFP Section M.1.3, paragraph M.1.3.3, States the submitted Small Business Subcontracting Plan must “meet the minimum requirements in FAR Part 19.704 addressing every subpart (a)

(1) through (a) (11) and minimum goals stated in section L.” Without specific numbers of potential task orders and associated funding it would be very difficult to establish Small Business values for a five year subcontracting plan. Please provide an estimate of the total annual value of task order to be competed each year of the period of performance.

Offeror’s should estimate the maximum dollar amount for purposes of the Small Business Plan.

N/C

14 RFP Section M.1.7, With regard to Pricing, is the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the sum of the 3

Task Order prices? If so, then will the Government normalize the amounts so that the largest Task Order doesn’t skew the TEP? The indication is that the Task Orders may be awarded as proposed on a Cost-

Plus basis. Doesn’t this create a tendency for unrealistically low bids?

The TEP will be the sum of the three task orders as stated in Section M. The Government will complete a most probable cost to address any unrealistically low or high bids for all cost task orders. As stated in Section M.1.1, the government may reject any proposal that is determined to be unrealistic in terms of technical, management, cost/price, or schedule commitments may be rejected.

N/C

15 RFP Attachment 7, Section 1, Page 1

Is this a new requirement? No. N/C

16 RFP Attachment 7, Section 3.1, Page 1

How many users currently access this portal both in total number and concurrently at any given time?

All available information has been included in the

Bidder’s Library.

N/C

17 RFP Attachment 7, Section 3.2, Page 1

Will the technical documentation for the applications already in place be provided when the final RFP/SOO is released?

All available information will be posted in the bidder’s library and/or will be provided in the

SOO (if available)

N/C

18 RFP Attachment 7, Section 3.3, Page 1

Does this task order include migration of sensitive data from legacy or external data sources?

Yes, as this is identified and prioritized by the government.

19 RFP Attachment 7, Section 3.3, Page 1

Does this task order include cleansing of sensitive data as part of either database administration or application development?

Not sure what is meant by cleansing of sensitive data. As part of any migration efforts, data would be removed from the old areas after it is migrated to the end repository.

N/C

20 RFP Attachment 7, Section 3.3, Page 1

What is the amount of data to be transitioned? Is the data structured or unstructured?

Exact data and amount of data to be migrated is not completely identified, although it is approximately 3 terabytes on NIPR and approximately 2 terabytes on SIPR

N/C

21 RFP Attachment 7, Section 3.5, Page 2

Does the government intend to provide a schedule for upgrades to applications or is this contractor defined schedule?

This is an ongoing operation, identifying and scheduling the upgrade of applications, so the schedule will be defined between government and contractor as these are defined.

N/C

22 RFP Attachment 7, Section 3.5, Page 2

Will the training be limited to Air Force Special Operations Command

(AFSOC) at Hurlburt Field, FL or will travel be required?

Training will involve all

AFSOC units and will require some travel.

N/C

23 RFP Attachment 7, Section 3.6, Page 2

What are the transaction volumes for each of the identified applications already in place?

Transaction volumes vary per network (SIPR and

NIPR) and all are enterprise applications capable of support up to

5000 users. Exact usage is not releasable.

N/C

24 RFP Attachment 7, Section 7, Page 4

What travel is expected? Is this travel associated with training? Will the government consider providing a bid “plug” number for the travel requirement to preempt any attempt at cost gamesmanship?

Travel for each SOO will be provided from historical information and will be included in offerors overall cost proposal.

RFP Attachment 7, Section 9.2, Page 4

Section 9.2 seems to indicate government will furnish all hardware and software licenses for development, testing, and production work. Please confirm.

The government will provide all hardware/software for development/testing purposes

N/C

26 RFP Attachment 7, Section 10, Page 4

Application development cycle to include testing and fielding may require a longer time frame than the period of performance. What is the government’s plan for any ongoing application development at the end of the period of performance? Will this work be continued beyond the

12 month period of performance? If so, will it be on an option year basis?

Any application development actions identified in the planning phase which extends beyond the period of performance will be evaluated and the Govt will specify the expected level of delivery for those efforts extending past the performance period.

N/C

27 RFP Attachment 10 States “The Customer’s evaluation will be used to calculate the

Contractor’s eligibility for XXXXXX incentives.” The RFP does not contain an Incentives Clause. What type/value of incentives are contemplated for which the contractor will be eligible to receive for meeting the SLA requirements in Attachment 10?

Incentives (if any) will be determined on a task order basis.

N/C

28 RFP / General Will the Government define the labor categories that are to be used by all offerors, or is each offeror expected to define its own labor categories?

The Government will not define the labor categories. The offeror should propose labor categories based on their proposed approach to the

CPFF task orders.

N/C

29 RFP General Is each offeror expected to submit a Contractor IDIQ Contract pricing schedule?

Each offeror shall submit a cost proposal for each task in accordance with the RFP instructions.

N/C

30 RFP, Section B, CLIN descriptions and RFP

Section C

The CLIN descriptions refer to “Section J Performance Work Statement”.

Likewise, Section C refers to a Performance Work Statement in the title and a Statement of Work in the text.

Section J, Attachment 1 are for a Statement of Work and not a PWS.

Please clarify whether or not this is to be a performance based requirement.

All RFP documents have been revised to read

PWS.

Atch 1 has been revised to read PWS

31 RFP, Section B, pages 2-4 The CLIN Structure (1001, 1002, and 1003) appears to be for one (1) contract year with three (3) cost elements.

The CLINs in the basic contract describe the

Recommend the Government consider utilizing CLINS and SubCLINs for each contract year (i.e. 0001 – 0003 Base Period; 1001 – 1003 Option

Year 1, 2001 – 2003 Option Year 2, etc.) for ease of tracking the contract cost/price by contract period.

contract types available for use under the contract. Specific CLINs for execution will be established by the task orders.

32 RFP, Section F, page 8, and

Section L.1, Paragraph 1.6, Section F lists a POP of 5 years and 3 months, while L.1 says the ordering period is 5 years.

Will the period 1/1/11 – 3/31/11 be the transition period? Please reconcile.

Yes, the 3 months is the transition period

N/C

33 RFP, Section H, Paragraph

H.6.2, page 12

The DRFP indicates Contractors shall submit a proposal for every requirement solicited without conflict unless granted a waiver in advance by the Contracting Officer. If the Contractor has reason to request a waiver, but is not granted a waiver by the Contracting Officer in advance, the Contractor shall submit a detailed statement of reason for a waiver to the Contracting Officer within 2 days of task order RFP receipt.

Recommend a change from “two (2) days” to “seven (7) days.” This will allow Contactors sufficient time to determine whether a conflict exists with the requirement, and whether the conflict can be mitigated to the

Contracting Officer’s satisfaction.

The RFP has been revised as requested.

Corrected

34 RFP, Section H, Paragraph

H.6.6, page 13

Is the Government authorizing utilization of Quick Closeout Procedures upon task order completion?

The use of quick closeout procedures may be authorized after award subject to DCMA approval, N/C

35 RFP, Section H, Paragraph

H.6.6, page 13

If Quick Closeout Procedures are utilized, will completion invoices be acceptable prior to the Contractor receiving DCAA final rates for the last contract year in which costs were incurred?

The use of quick closeout procedures may be authorized after award subject to DCMA approval, N/C

36 RFP, Section I, Clauses

Incorporated by Full Text, Clause 52.216-18 ORDERING indicates “Such orders may be issued from

Contract Award through 31 March 2013.

Please clarify whether 31 March 2013 is correct. If so, does the contract period of performance consist of a two year base period and three option periods?

The Contract will have a

3.25 year ordering period.

The contract has been revised to include an ordering period of

Contract Award through

30 Sep 2014.

RFP revised.

37 RFP, Section I, page 46. “(c) The follow positions are identified as Key Personnel: Program

Manager, Assistant/Deputy Program Manager, Lead Individual for each Location of these personnel and the hours

Service Area Under SOW Paragraph 5.1, and Lead Individual for each

Subcontractor/ Teammate”

Where must these Key Personnel be geographically located?

Is there a minimum number of hours the proposed individuals must be required to devote to this contract?

required to perform the functions is at the discretion of the offeror

38 RFP, Section J, page 47. Attachment 4, DD254 Security Plan, Attachment 6, CDRLs, Attachment 8, App Mgt TO #2 and Attachment 9, App Mgt TO #3 have not been provided.

When will these attachments be posted or provided to offerors?

These documents will be included with the FRFP.

N/C

39 RFP, Section L to Section M

Crosswalk, page 57.

The Total Compensation Plan (Volume I) is referred to in the “Section L to

Section M Crosswalk,” but is not mentioned in the Proposal Submission

Requirements Matrix or in Section M.

Will the Proposal Submission Requirements Matrix be amended to include information about the Total Compensation Plan for Volume I?

The RFP has been revised to clarify that the plan shall be provided in accordance with 52.222-

46 (Evaluation of

Compensation for

Professional Employees).

RFP has been revised

40 RFP, Section L table Section

L to Section M Crosswalk, pages 57 and 67

The table matches Past and Present Performance with Section M.1.5 and

Task Order Management with Section M.1.6.

Section M.1.5 is Task Order Management and Section M.1.6 is Past and

Present Performance. Please clarify.

The table will be corrected.

Corrected

41 RFP, Section L, Format

Requirement, 42Page

Limits, page 58.

The RFP states that “Title pages, table of contents, section dividers, and cover pages will not count in page limits and will not be evaluated.”

Will the government also excuse from the page limitation a table of figures, list of acronyms, and compliance matrix, if these are included in each volume?

Only Title pages, table of contents, section dividers, and cover pages will be excluded from page limits.

N/C

42 RFP, Section L, Proposal

Submission Requirements, I-A – Offeror Profile and Performance Capabilities requires “Fiscal

Revenue for 2008 / 2009 (Based on company fiscal year)”.

Our last completed fiscal year is 2010. Should this requirement be modified to indicate the last two completed fiscal years?

The RFP has been revised to request data for the last 2 completed fiscal years.

Corrected

43 RFP, Section L – Proposal

Submission Requirements, Volume II, page 59; and

Section M.1.4 Factor 1 –

Technical/ Management, The Section L discussion of “Volume II – Technical/Management

Proposal” doesn’t specify a requirement to provide a technical approach to any of the SOW tasks. However, Section M states that “the

Government will evaluate the offeror’s overall approach and expressed capabilities for providing the IT service management and integration services across all IT Service Areas.”

Where in Volume II does the Government want the offeror to describe

Section L has been revised to require the offeror to describe their approach and expressed capabilities for providing the IT service management and integration services

Section revised.

the offeror’s technical approaches to the SOW tasks? across all IT Service Areas.

Technical approaches to

SOW (SOO) tasks will be described in Volume IV.

44 RFP, Section L/Key

Personnel, page 60

Do resumes count against the 90-page limitation in Volume II? The RFP has been revised to exclude the resumes from the volume page count. Note: each resume is still subject to the 2 page limitation.

Corrected

45 RFP, Section L, Volume II-B, Key Personnel, page 60

Section L indicates that the offer must provide information on the

“Corporate and personal commitment to providing specific proposed key management.”

Please define “key management” and specify what kind of information on our corporate and personal commitment(s) should be provided (e.g., is a signed letter of commitment required?).

The Offeror’s Key

Management personnel will be identified based on the Offeror’s proposed approach and will include at a minimum the key personnel identified in the RFP. The Offeror’s proposal should define the Offeror’s approach to ensuring corporate and individual commitment.

N/C

46 RFP, Section L, Volume II-E, The text requires the offeror to “describe their overall management approach for transition and a complete transition plan.”

Yes – Offerors approach for transition in Vol II should focus on overall transition as it relates to

ITIL v3. Transition management related to specific task orders should be addressed with task order proposals.

N/C

48 RFP, Section L, Volume II-E, Will the final RFP contain the task order forecast referenced on page 60 in the Transition Plan?

Task forecast has been deleted from the referenced document.

Corrected

49 RFP, page 46 and RFP, Section L, pages 60 and 62

Offerors are required to provide six key personnel plus one for each subcontractor proposed.

Are these resumes excluded from the 90-page limitation identified in

Section L for Volume II – Technical/Management Proposal and the 25 page limitation identified in Section L for Volume IV – Task Order

Management and Performance Work Statement?

The RFP has been revised to exclude the resumes from the volume page count. Note: each resume is still subject to the 2 page limitation.

50 RFP, Section L – Volume IV –

Task Order Management and Performance Work

Statement, page 62; and

RFP, Section M, Evaluation

Category, page 66; and

Attachment 7 – App Mgt TO

1 SOO

Section L indicates that the offeror shall submit more than one task order response. Section M indicates that the evaluation will be based on responses to 3 task orders. However, Attachment 7 is the only task order

SOO provided with the solicitation.

Please clarify.

Three SOOs will be provided in the Final RFP.

Offerors will submit a proposal for each one of them for evaluation.

N/C

51 RFP, Section L, Volume IV-B, Because there are many specific performance areas, the potential SDS metrics will be equally extensive.

Based on the Government’s expressed desire for quality, innovation, and performance measures, will the government exclude the bid SDS table and/or QASP from the page count?

The page limitations have been modified. The government does not believe it is necessary for the SDS data to be excluded from the page count.

N/C

52 SOW, General The Government describes the Participating Entities and the services to be addressed. It does not specify whether follow-on TOs will be structured to provide all paragraph 5 services on a by-organization basis, or if TOs will represent a subsets of paragraph 5 services on a by-organization basis, or if TOs will be structured in functional layers for all participating Entities.

Which of these courses of action best characterizes the Government’s acquisition strategy?

The majority of the task orders will be by organization that may include all services in paragraph 5 or could consist of separate task orders for each service.

There will be a few enterprise task orders that will address one area in paragraph 5, but support most, if not all, organizations.

N/C

53 SOW, Paragraph 1.0, page 4 This paragraph states that the “Contractor shall provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and other items necessary to perform the services….”

Will the contractor be responsible for material acquisition for this SOW?

No. Corrected

54 SOW, Paragraph 3.5, page 6 “The Application Management Services Contractor(s) shall develop and implement processes to perform compliance monitoring and periodic assessments of all IT service providers performing work under the SITEC service delivery approach to validate that their respective services and solutions are both conforming and compliant with all applicable DoD, USSOCOM, and Participating Entity direction, guidance, policy and regulations, as well as all other applicable documents.” The Government intends to award a minimum of 3 and maximum of 5 prime awards as a

The RFP has been revised to redefine the requirement.

result of this solicitation.

What other IT service providers will the Application Management

Services Contractors be required to monitor and assess?

55 SOW, Paragraph 5.1.1.8, The government indicated the Application Management Services

Contractor(s) would support Tier 2 and 3, while the SITEC IT Service Desk

Contractor would support Tier 1.

Will the SITEC Service Desk Contractor have remote access to the

Application Management Services Participating Entities environment, to include the ability to action fixes to servers, routers, switches, desktop and end users devices?

No, the Service Desk contractor will not have access to the PE environment.

N/C

56 SOW, Paragraph 5.3. page

“The Application Management Services Contractor(s) shall assist the

Participating Entity in performing liaison management between enterprise and localized IT service providers providing services related to one of the five IT service areas (e.g., Data Center Management, Distributed Computing Services, Enterprise Network Services, IT Service

Desk Services, and Specialty Services).”

Please define “liaison management” and “localized.”

The RFP has been revised for clarity.

Corrected

57 SOW, Paragraph 5.4 –

Contract Level Performance

Examples chart, page 17-18

One objective identified in this chart reads as follows: “Does the

Contractor maintain SIPRNet capability in off-site facilities when required?” The related metric is stated as follows: “Contractor’s SIPRNET services will be available to the customer at least 85% of the operating hours during a calendar month.”

How much “SIPRNet capability in off-site facilities” must the offeror be able to provide, and in what locations must it be provided?

The RFP has been revised to delete the requirement.

Corrected

58 SOW, Paragraph 5.4, page

Does the Government expect a comprehensive Performance

Management Plan as part of the proposal or will a discussion of performance management plan highlights and key factors suffice?

The requirement for the

Performance

Management Plan has been deleted from the

PWS.

Corrected

59 SOW, Paragraph 5.5 and

5.6, pages 20-21

Paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 require management activities beyond what is required for each task order. Specifics cited include: “a common level of management” and a “contract-centric monthly report.”

Will the Government issue a task order for overall contractor contract management activities, or does the Government intend that contractors spread the contract management costs across all issued task orders?

No contract management specific task orders will be awarded.

N/C

60 SOW, Paragraph 5.6, page

Monthly Report Requirements.

Will classified monthly reports be required and, if so, what will be the

It is not anticipated that classified monthly reports method of submission? will be required. If classified reports are required for an individual task order the requirement will be called out in the ITO.

61 Attachment 10 – App Mgt

TO 1 SLAs, Section 1.1, Paragraph 4A.

Paragraph 4A states that “Total elapsed time in calendar days to fill an open key position from date position is initially vacated until qualified appropriately cleared personnel are working onsite is calculated as:” The contractor security/screening requirements of various “Participating

Entities,” e.g., background investigations (finance, security, criminal, etc.), psychological evaluations, command/group interviews significantly impact the time it takes a contractor to fill a new or vacated position.

How will the Government take these Participating Entity requirements into consideration, so that the contractor is not penalized because of circumstances beyond the contractor’s control?

The contractor would not be penalized for processing delays directly attributable to inaction or processing delays caused by a Participating Entity.

However, the contractor is fully responsible for ensuring that it provides prompt notification of vacancy and replacement candidate, monitors the processing progress, and provides weekly progress report updates to keep

USSOCOM informed of processing delays that are caused exclusively by the

Participating Entity

N/C

62 SOW, Paragraph 5.1, page 8 and 5.1.2, page 11

“The Application Management Services Contractor(s) shall support

Participating Entity application maintenance activities associated with repairing errors and defects of new or existing GOTS/COTS applications and logical databases.”

Please confirm that the method used to repair errors and defects in COTS applications will be to apply product patches or perform product version upgrades in accordance with COTS vendor procedures.

That is correct. N/C

63 SOW, Paragraph 5.1, page 9 and 5.1.3, page 13

“The Application Management Services Contractor(s) will support

Participating Entity application development activities associated with development of application enhancements, and related modifications, on undeveloped, new, existing or GOTS/COTS applications and logical databases.”

Please confirm that the method used to enhance or otherwise modify

COTS applications will be to apply product patches or perform product version upgrades in accordance with COTS vendor procedures.

Not in all cases.

Modifications in many cases involve custom modifications.

64 SOW, Paragraph 5.1.2.6, “Develop and maintain system manual”

Please confirm that a system manual is consistent with the term “system administration manual”.

The system manual and the system administration manual are synonymous.

N/C

65 SOW, Paragraph 5.1.3.1, “Support development of related investment and technical documentation including support for Investment Control, financial data”

Please describe what is meant by Investment Control and consider providing an example of an Investment Control document with the final

RFP.

The PWS has been revised for clarity.

Corrected

66 SOW, Paragraph 5.1.3.4, “Support user acceptance and assurance testing, baseline acceptance testing, and related Information Assurance and Certification &

Accreditation (C&A) testing.”

Please describe what is meant by “user acceptance and assurance testing”.

All new/modified/upgraded applications and databases must be test for user functionality as well as information assurance testing before being deployed on the operational network.

N/C

67 SOW, Paragraph 5.1.3.5, “Migrate correction code”

Please describe what is meant by this phrase.

Migrating correction code is the process of migrating development/testing activities and the applicable source code to the operational network

N/C

68 SOO Attachment 7, Paragraph 3.3.2

“Expedite the process of developing data flows and automating data feeds to create a commander’s operational picture, support critical mission information and collaboration capabilities, migrate applications to the SIPRNET, and support the migration and automation of business processes and information to the AFSOC SOFNET portal.”

Please describe what is meant by the phrase “developing data flows and automating data feeds.”

“Developing data flows and automating data feeds” would involve identifying, documenting, programming and coordinating process for sending data from existing systems to the portal systems developed to deliver information to the leadership. These processes could include coding requirements for interface to existing applications, or simply retrieving data from industry standard application delivery systems.

69 SOO Attachment 7, Paragraph 3.4

“Support the sustainment of NIPRNet and SIPRNet MAJCOM SharePoint web and database services by serving as administrators in accordance with Air Force instructions.”

Please describe the types of database products requiring administration.

Subject paragraph has been deleted from RFP.

Web and database administration will be accomplished by the Data

Center Provider.

Corrected

70 SOO Attachment 7, Paragraph 3.5

“Provide technical and requirements analysis, recommendations for procedural direction, process improvements, and planning for complex customer programs and systems within AFSOC with a goal to integrate these into SharePoint portals and support the Secure Operating

Environment (SOE) initiative.”

Please consider including documentation describing the Secure Operating

Environment (SOE) initiative in the final RFP.

All available information on the Secure Operating

Environment will be included in the Bidders

Library.

N/C

71 SOO Attachment 7, Paragraph 3.6

“Develop and maintain MAJCOM business and command and control (C2) software applications as identified and prioritized by the C&IWG requirements process. Provide PMO support for all applications developed. This includes maintenance of the following applications already in place:”

Please consider annotating each application with the COTS products enabling their operation, in the final RFP.

Each application listed relies on the following but is not limited to this subset of COTS applications as may be required to support and or continue development of these applications:

Microsoft Dot Net frame work (version 3.5 is latest, but support for all previous and later versions required)

MS SQL Server database backend(version 2005, but all future version required)

Microsoft Office

SharePoint

Server(currently 2007, but all future versions must be supported)

Microsoft Visual Studio is currently used for all code development.

All available information has been included in the

Bidder’s Library. No further revisions to the

RFP will be made.

DRAFT RFP-B.1CONTRACT

MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM

Section B.1 states that "The contract minimum is defined in 52.216-22 for this contract is $2,500.00. The maximum is $65,000,000.00” Is the maximum amount specified for each awardee, per year or for all awardees for all years?

The amount is the expected value of all awards. However, the maximum for contractual purposes will be as stated in the individual contracts.

N/C

DRAFT RFP-B.1CONTRACT

MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM

How many awards are anticipated in response to this solicitation?

3 - 5 Awards are anticipated and the contract maximum stated will be split among all awardees.

N/C

Attachment 1/ Section 3.2/

Page 6 and Attachment 7/

Section 4.1/ Page 3

Attachment 1 states "The majority of Application Management Services

Task Orders will require a TS-SCI personnel security clearance and a

Secret level of safeguarding granted by Defense Security Service (DSS)."

Attachment 7 (SOO for Task Order 1) states that "Contractor team individual(s) supporting this task will be cleared at the Secret level at the start of this task. Contractors must meet the eligibility requirements to obtain higher clearances as required by the task order." Would the

Government provide insight to help the contractor determine whether proposing people with Secret Clearances (eligible for higher clearances) will be acceptable for the other Task Orders?

The Offeror must demonstrate the ability to provide personnel cleared to the appropriate level for all task orders.

N/C

Attachment 1/ Section 3.2/

Page 6 and Attachment 7/

Section 4.1/ Page 3

Related to Question 1 - Would the government indicate whether the language used above regarding security requirements which state staff members must have a secret level at the start of a task will be typical of most application management tasks or if higher level clearances will typically be required

Most task orders will only require a Secret clearance, but all individuals supporting any task under this contract must be able to obtain a higher level clearance.

N/C

76 Section L, 1.6, Pg. 56 of 68 The Industry Day Briefings state that the Application Management Base

Contract is two (2) years with a one (1) year option. However, in Section

L it states that the Offeror’s proposal shall be based on an ordering period of five (5) years. Can the Government please clarify the Period of

Section L will be corrected.

Performance?

77 Section L, II-E, pg 60 of 68 In order to draft an effective Transition Plan, can the government provide a list and timeline of tasks that they expect to compete?

Offeror should provide a transition plan based on their knowledge, expertise, experience, standard approach, and best practices

N/C

78 Attachment 7 What are the integration points required between USSOCOM HQ, the Air

Force, and AFSOC to support the application development process?

Any information available on the integration points will be published in the bidder’s library.

N/C

79 Attachment 7 To level the playing field and ensure all responders have the information to properly size this effort, please provide the following information for each of the applications requiring support: the technology platform(s), the number of users per application, the number of custom applications for SharePoint, the number of forms and tables for non-SharePoint, historical data on Tier 2 and Tier 3 requests, and the size of the development team currently on staff.

All information available has been posted in the

Bidder’s Library.

N/C

80 Section B Page 2 -3 Since the RFP calls for FFP and CPFF tasks only, is it the government’s intent for each offeror to provide labor categories specific to each task?

The offeror is required to proposed labor, to include categories at the task order level.

N/C

81 Attachment 7 Please provide the contract type for this task order. All initial task orders will be proposed as CPFF.

N/C

82 Section H What is the period of performance for this contract The ordering period is from contract award through 31 March 2014.

The period of performance for each task order will be detailed in the ITO.

Corrected

83 RFP Sec-L/L.1 II-C - Teaming

Arrangements/P. 60

The instructions for Teaming Arrangements cite PWS sections from

Specialty Services vs. Application Management Services: “The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate how the overall teaming arrangement will provide the expertise required in the various major functional areas outlined under the PWS at the task order levels: for example, IT Service management, Network Services, Data Center Management, Distributed

Computing, Application Management.”

Would the government please revise this text?

The RFP has been revised to read “for example, IT

Service Management, Application Maintenance, and Application

Development (and appropriate sub-sections as applicable).”

84 PWS 3.7 pg7, Attachment

#1, Section 1.0 pg 4, paragraph 6

This section conflicts with Section 3.7 Equipment. Will the government please clarify these sections? Recommend the section 1 Paragraph read.

The Application Management Services Contractor(s) shall provide all personnel, supervision, and other items necessary to perform the services and provide support to all mission areas of USSOCOM as specified in this SOW and ordered under individual task orders. The

Participating Entity will identify the Government furnished office space and equipment (computers, desks, facsimile machines, copy machines, telephones) for Application Management Services Contractor(s) personnel in each TO ITO.

The PWS has been corrected reflect the government’s intent.

Corrected

85 Attachment #1, Section

5.1.2.6

We assume the ITSM contractor in support of the ITMO will maintain a comprehensive application and architecture portfolio for the SIE that encompasses the requirements of this section. Are the items in the bulleted list (15) to be coordinated with an overall portfolio? Or is each offeror to provide and maintain the stated requirements of these items individually?

Each Offeror is to provide and maintain stated requirements individually subject to existing and future USSOCOM and/or

DoD requirements per

Section 3.5 (Compliance with DoD and USSOCOM

IT Standards)

N/C

86 Attachment #1, Section

5.1.3.1

We assume the ITSM contractor in support of the ITMO will maintain a comprehensive application and architecture portfolio for the SIE that encompasses the requirements of this section. Are the items in the bulleted list (7) to be coordinated with an overall portfolio? Or is each offeror to provide and maintain the stated requirements of these items individually?

Each Offeror is to provide and maintain stated requirements individually subject to existing and future USSOCOM and/or

DoD requirements per

Section 3.5 (Compliance with DoD and USSOCOM

IT Standards)

N/C

87 Attachment #1, Section

5.1.3.7

We assume the ITSM contractor in support of the ITMO will maintain a comprehensive application and architecture portfolio for the SIE that encompasses the requirements of this section. Are the items in the bulleted list (3) to be coordinated with an overall portfolio? Or is each offeror to provide and maintain the stated requirements of these items individually?

Each Offeror is to provide and maintain stated requirements individually subject to existing and future USSOCOM and/or

DoD requirements per

Section 3.5 (Compliance with DoD and USSOCOM

IT Standards)

N/C

88 Attachment #1, Section

5.1.3.4, Bullet 5

Stage Systems before implementation

Is it the intent that the work in this section will be the done in the SIF?

Final testing will be done in the SIF; other testing is at the discretion of the

Participating Entity and will be identified in the

Task Order

89 Attachment #1, Section

5.1.1.7

“The Application Management Services Contractor(s) shall monitor the work performed by Application Management Services Contractor(s) to ensure that ongoing and continuous incorporation of all appropriate IA requirements” then it says “This monitoring shall, at a minimum, include the network, data center, service desk (where applicable), distributed computing, and applications management.”

We believe this to be error. Will the Government please clarify?

The RFP has been revised to clarify the government’s requirement.

Corrected

90 Attachment #1, Section

5.1.3.6, Bullet 3.

Designated Configuration Management system

Is there a specific source code Configuration Management System managed by the ITSM contractor for custom code under this section or will the contractor provide their own internal system?

If contractor system is required, the Task Order will state so

N/C

91 SLA 1-1

The SLA Description (paragraph 2A) and the Calculation (4A) do not match for SLA 1-1. Is the SLA supposed to cover notification of vacant positions or the timely fill of vacant positions?

The RFP has been revised to correct the inconsistency.

Atch 10 has been revised to remove requirement to notify customer.

92 SLA 1-1

The measurements described for SLA 1-1 work well when only calculating the timely fill of one position. Is the monthly calculation supposed to be an average of fill times for each position? For example, if two key positions were opened and on filled in 2 days while the other was filled in

20 days, would that be calculated as 11 days?

This is a per-position measurement and calculation (for all key personnel).

N/C

93 SLA 1-1

How will measurements for SLA 1-1 be handled in a month where no vacancies of key positions exist?

The Contractor is performing as expected and there is no issue; the

SLA will not be in effect for these periods.

N/C

94 SLA 1-1

Will a key position be counted in SLA 1-1 based on the month that the position was vacated or the month that it was filled? For example, if a key employee leaves on 25 August and the position is filled on 20 September, would that be included in the August or September calculation?

The SLA will be counted in the month the target is achieved or the minimum is not met.

N/C

95 RFP F Delivery Dates Page 8

RFP Section I Clause 52.216-

18 (a) Page 29

Will the Government order throughout the entire period of performance?

Yes N/C