Attachment 13 - App Mgt Q and A _22 Mar 11_.pdf

H92222-10-R-0046, 0002 March 22, 2011

Attachment 13 – App Mgt Questions and Answers ***Not to be included in any resultant contract***

SITEC APPLICATION MANAGEMENT RFP

Q U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

PAGE

Questions / Comments

Response

Attachment 1, Section C PWS, paragraph 5.1.3.8 Training Services, Application End-User Training, a service area under SOW 5.1, does not have a corresponding description at the third heading-level as do the other service areas. Therefore, this offeror assumes 5.1.3.8 Training Services should become Section 5.1.4.

Is this assumption correct? If no, please clarify. If yes, is there any additional training services description that would accompany this new section?

5.1.3.8 Training Services should have been Section 5.1.4. The PWS has been revised.

Attachment 1 - PWS - Section 5.0 -page 7 and Section

L, 1.7, II-C

Teaming

Arrangements, page

Please clarify the number, names, and descriptions of service areas applicable to this solicitation. In Section 5 of the Attachment 1 PWS, the solicitation states, “The scope of work in this PWS is covered in the three services areas described below:

IT Service Management, Application Maintenance, Application Development, Database Maintenance, Database Development, and Application End-User Training.” This statement suggests three service areas yet lists six. In Section 5.1, four service areas are listed as bullets: IT Service Management, Applications Maintenance, Application Development, and Application End- User Training. The subsections of Section 5.1 list three service areas, with training being a subsection (5.1.3.8) of Application Development. In Section L.1.7, three functional areas are listed in the instructions for II-C Teaming Arrangements: Application Development, Application Maintenance, and Application End- User Training.

PWS has been revised to resolve confusion.

3 7.0 Materials and;

Period and Place of Performance and Travel

Attachment 10 paragraph 7.0 indicates the Government will provide office space for a maximum of 7 contractor personnel for this task. Further, the Period and Place of Performance states that “The Government anticipates this work to be performed on site at Coronado NAB, CA and Little Creek NAB, VA”.

Request the Government clarify the distribution of the 7 contractor personnel by specifying the number expected to perform at each location (Coronado and Little Creek)

The distribution is as follows:

Coronado = 6

Little Creek = 1

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

4 Attachments 7 through 11

The Travel paragraphs for each TO appear to have PE perspective only and not take into account the USSOCOM umbrella contract to support individual task orders for specific mission and administrative functions. The base RFP Attachment 1 Section C Performance Work Statement (PWS) indicates the Application Management Services Contractor(s) shall meet all requirements and responsibilities in support of USSOCOM as outlined in the PWS, including subsequent task orders. The contract PWS paragraph 5.2.1 specifies that Application Management Services Contractors must provide a management team structure that aligns with the Participating Entity’s internal IT management requirements, and include key senior representatives responsible for performance of AMSC tasks and activities.

It is anticipated that a certain minimum amount of travel will be required for oversight and quality control, Relationship Management, and consistency as required by the base PWS.

Additional PWS Paragraph 5.3 Relationship Management requires close coordination and constant communication with other PEs, other SITEC IT Service Area Providers, any additional AMSCs as required, the CO, COR and “Participating Entity” leadership (PE Leadership may not necessarily be collocated at the TO performance site). As per section H, Offerors shall provide the basis of estimate for any travel costs included in the price proposal.” it is anticipated that travel will be necessary in the performance of all TO’s.

We request the Government reconsider and clarify TO travel requirements with respect to base PWS and umbrella contract support requirements and adjust the travel paragraphs in each TO accordingly.

The travel estimates included in the Invitation To Offerors are included for information only and reflect the Governments estimate of travel directly related to performance of the task order. Offeror travel estimates will vary based on the offors approach to meeting the contract requirements. Allocation of Contractor Oversight cost is dependent on the offors approach and must be consistent with the offerors’ accounting practice.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

5 2.1 Participating Entities and PE’s indicated by Task Orders

Attachment 1 Section C Performance Work Statement (page 4) paragraph 2.1 designates the USSOCOM Participating Entities to include:

• USSOCOM Headquarters (USSOCOM-HQ—location MacDill AFB, FL.)

• United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC- location Fort Bragg, NC.)

• Naval Special Warfare Command (NAVSOC-location Coronado, CA.)

• Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC-location Hurlburt Field, FL.)

• Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC-location Camp Lejuene, NC.)

The PWS places numerous specific requirements, actions, coordination, and reports for supporting the designated “Participating Entity”.

We request that the government designate the Participating Entity offerors will coordinate with by adding the Participating Entity to the ITO for each task order.

The Government will include the Participating Entity to the ITO of each SOO.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

6 H.6.2 Performance Work Statement Section

C.1.1Service Delivery Summary

C.5.4 Task Order Management Methodology

L.1.7.IV-B – TO

Performance Work Statement

Multiple references are made in the these sections to a Task Order SDS Table in section 5.4 of the PWS. This section appeared in the DRFP and included suggested metrics, but appears to have been removed from the final RFP.

The SDS appears to be a critical element of the RFP and offerors proposals. We request the Government restore the removed section or correct the references to this material.

The PWS has been updated to replace SDS with SLA.

7 Volume IV – Task order Management and Performance Work Statement page allocations.

Page limits for the IV-A TO Management Section is set as 10 and IV-B Performance Work Statement is set as 25 per TO. It appears that the IV-A limit is very restrictive based on the required content, and the IV-B limit is generous based on the required content of the PWS. We recommend the Government revise the limits to 35 pages for each TO, permitting the offeror the flexibility to split the pages between section A and B according to the required content.

10 Pages per ITO is suffient for the requested information.

8 Attachment 7 through 11

The TOs indicate the maximum capability supported by the Governments facilities; however, the tasks contain no workload data or specifications that would indicate the specific qualifications required or the scale of work within the various described objectives. Please provide the qualifications of the staff currently performing the tasks and the number of contractors filling each labor category.

Qualifications and the quantitiy of contractors filling each labor categories are not available for Attachments 7, 9, 10 and 11. Qualifications for personnel are provided for Atch 8.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

9 5652.237-9001 This section identifies lead individuals for Subcontractor/Teammates as Key Personnel. We request this requirement be eliminated because:

• Subcontracts will not be in place until an award of task orders

• There is no guarantee that all teammates will receive subcontracts as their use depends on the specific scope of task orders awarded to the prime

• Subcontractors utilized over the term of the IDIQ contract are subject to change depending on the scope of task orders awarded

• This is a highly unusual requirements as the Government will have no direct contract with the subcontractors and subcontractors key personnel will have no authority to commit the prime

Eliminating the requirement will relieve a significant administrative burden from the contractor and the Government

The Government requires identification and approval of key personnel in accordance with the clause.

10 General Since the Final RFP includes 5 task orders with significant technical and resume requirements that were not evident in the

DRFP, please grant a two week extension to the due date.

The government will extend the bid closing date to 4 APR 2011.

11 FAR Clause 52.215-

Section I includes FAR Clause 52.215-17 Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of Money. For offerors with Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCM) as part of their disclosed estimating methodology, would the government include applicable FAR clause 52.215-16 as part of Section I for this solicitation?

Yes, if a successful offeror has FCCM, then the Government will remove 52.215-17 and insert 52.215-16 in the resultant contract.

Offeror’s should propose in accordance with their disclosed accounting practices.

12 L.1.7. IV-B

Performance Work Statement

The RFP calls for a FAR compliant PWS, however pricing for the TOs are listed as cost plus fixed fee. Would the Government consider making the TOs cost plus award fee or cost plus incentive fee to provide a means to provide performance incentives to offerors consistent with the intent of performance contracting?

The government concluded that CPFF was the most appropriate contract type for the tasks in the initial competition.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

13 RFP H 6.2 / 5

(Cost/Price) / page

This paragraph indicates a cost reimbursable travel CLIN.

Would the Government please reconcile this with the CLIN structure in B?

Reference to a travel CLIN has been deleted. Travel is included in the Cost Pluse Fixed Fee estimate.

14 RFP L 1.7 / 3rd Table, row 4, bullet 5 / page 65

Attachment 13 / Question 42 / unpaged

The answer to DRFP Question 42 indicated that the fiscal revenue for the last two completed fiscal years would be required. Section L calls for FY 2008 and 2009. Would the Government please reconcile this bullet with that answer?

Fiscal revenue has been revised to read “2009/2010”

15 RFP L 1.7 / 3rd Table, row 16 (II-E) / page 67

Attachment 13 / Question 46 / unpaged

The material required in L does not match that required in the answer to DRFP Question 46. Would the Government please revise the instruction in L to direct the offeror to focus on overall transition as it relates to ITIL v3 in Volume II, section E?

The answer provided to Q46 in the draft RFP was incorrect. The required transition plan is as requested in Vol II section E, not ITIL v3.

16 RFP L 52-216-1 / 1

/ page 70

Section B does not include a cost reimbursable CLIN. Would the Government please reconcile this paragraph and B?

Cost Reimbursement has been removed from the clause.

17 Attachment 1

(PWS) / 5.5

Paragraph 2, Item 7 / page 15

How will the offeror be required to report manpower after the electronic database has been developed?

The process will be developed and coordinated with Service Providers.

18 RFP L 1.6 / 1 / page

Attachment 1

(PWS) / 5.6.1.1 /

L calls for an assumed start date of Monday, May 16. PWS

5.6.1.1 calls for Sunday, May 15. Please reconcile this discrepancy.

The government will revise to indicate May 16 to ensure consistency with Section L.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

19 Attachment 1

(PWS) / 5.6.1.1 /

Attachment 13 / Question 46 / unpaged

The work required in the PWS does not match that required in the answer to DRFP Question 46. Would the Government please revise the work described to direct the offeror to focus on overall transition as it relates to ITIL v3?

The answer provided to Q46 in the draft RFP was incorrect. The required transition plan is as requested in Vol II section E, not ITIL v3.

20 Attachment 7 / SCI Addendum 5 / unpaged

Will the Government please provide the value of “XXX”? The XXX will be completed based on awardees proposal.

21 Attachment 8 / SOO

4.1 / unpaged

Attachment 8 / DD 254 / unpaged

The SOO security requirements do not match the DD 254.

Would the Government please reconcile these two parts of the

ITO?

The Government’s review did not disclose any disconnects between the SOO and Draft DD 254.

22 Attachment 9 / SCI Addendum 5 / unpaged

Will the Government please provide the value of “XXX”? The XXX will be completed based on awardees proposal.

23 Attachment 11 / SCI Addendum 5 / unpaged

Will the Government please provide the value of “XXX”? The XXX will be completed based on awardees proposal.

24 Attachment 12 /

SLA F-2, 5B /

unpaged

The material in 5B Notes and Comments seems duplicative and redundant. Could the Government please revise this section to clarify?

While there is some duplication, there is also clarifying data that is not duplicative.

25 Attachment 12 /

SLA F-4, 3F /

unpaged

Attachment 13 / Question 61 / unpaged

Would the Government please add the exception detailed in the answer to DRFP Question 61 to SLA f-4?

We cannot document every possible exception for each SLA. This will be addressed as they occur.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

26 RFP Section L / paragraph 1.7 / p. 64 Deliverables

Would the Government please clarify the printed bound deliverable amounts for Volumes II and IV? Does the Government require one (1) original and three (3) copies of Volumes II and IV?

The government Government requires one (1) original and three (3) copies of Volumes II and IV.

27 RFP Section L / paragraph 1.7 / p.

67, Volume III Past Performance;

Attachment 13 / Questions and Answers #9

Would the Government please clarify if Standard Form 294/295s will be considered part of the 30 page, page count for Volume

III?

The Page Limits have been revised to exclude SF 294/295s from page limits.

28 RFP Section L / paragraph 1.7 / p.

64;

RFP Section L / Proposal Submission Requirements / p.

Would the Government please reconcile the discrepancies between the Section L to Section M Crosswalk “I-D Adequate Business Systems, I-D Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation, I-E Total Compensation Plan” and the Proposal Submission Requirements “I-D Adequate Business Systems, I-E Small Business Subcontracting Plan…, I-F Total Compensation Plan”?

The Vol I subheading I-D to I-F have been renumbered.

PWS Section 5.1 (page 7) and 5.1.3.8 (page 13)

PWS 5.1 describes four service areas: ITSM, Application Maintenance, Application Development, and Application End- User Training. The first three topics are addressed in 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3. There is no section titled Application End User Training. Would the Government consider revising the PWS to reflect PWS 5.1.3.8 Training Services as PWS 5.1.4 and titled Application End-User Training?

PWS has been revised to avoid confusion.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

PWS Section 5.0, PWS 5.0 states “The scope of work in this PWS is covered in the three service areas described below:”, but then lists six areas (ITSM, Application Maintenance, Application Development, Database Maintenance, Database Development, and Application End-User Training). PWS 5.1 subsequently lists four service areas (ITSM, Application Maintenance, Application Development, and Application End-User Training). Would the Government consider revising Section 5.0 to align with Section 5.1?

PWS has been revised to avoid confusion.

31 Attachment 7 / Section 10.0 / Personnel

To align the requirements within all Statement’s of Objectives, would the Government consider revising “Key Personnel are identified at the basic contract level. Offeror’s shall provide resumes for key personnel”, to the following: “All positions in support of this task order are considered key. As such, contractor shall submit resumes for all new and replacement candidates.”

The SOO key personnel requirements have been revised so that all personnel are not key.

32 Attachment 9 / Section 10.0 / Personnel

To the align requirements within all Statement’s of Objectives, would the Government consider revising “The resume of the task lead will be provided for approval by the government”, to “All positions in support of this task order are considered key. As such, contractor shall submit resumes for all new and replacement candidates.”

The SOO key personnel requirements have been revised so that all personnel are not key.

33 Attachment 7 / Section 3.1.2 / Bullet 7 and 9

Section 3.1.2 of Attachment 7 has duplicate bullets. Would the government consider removing either bullet 7 or bullet 9 which both read: “Ensure compliance with DoD Information Systems Security policies, functionality, and optimization”?

Second duplicate bullet will be removed from SOO.

34 Attachment 1 / Section 3.5

Section 3.5 states: “Network Interfaces” but has no subsequent text and appears to be a fragment which does not fit the section.

Would the Government consider amending this section?

Network Interfaces has been deleted.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

35 Attachment 11 / Instructions to Offeror’s (ITO)

Period and Place of Performance states: “The Government anticipates this work to be performed at Hurlburt Field, Florida” is this correct?

Place of Performance has been corrected.

36 Attachment 12 / Section 4B Target Criteria

Section states: “The total elapsed time of not more than 4 calendar weeks (i.e., 14 calendar days).” Would the Government consider reconciling the inconsistency between the two definitions?

The section has been revised to state 2 calendar weeks.

Attachment 12 / Section 4C Minimum Acceptable

Section states: “The total elapsed time of not more than 8 calendar weeks (i.e., 28 calendar days).” Would the Government consider reconciling the inconsistency between the two definitions?

The section has been revised to state 4 calendar weeks.

38 Attachment 10 - NSWC Software & Training Support

SOO, Section 3.5.2, This offeror assumes that the “records manager supporting the daily operations of the NAVSPECWARCOM Records Management Program” is contractor personnel. Is this assumption correct? If no, please clarify.

The Atch 10 records manager is a contractor.

Attachment 9 - SOO

For Evaluation, USSOCOM

Intelligence/Imager y Training Support, Section 4.1, page 2

This section states, “Contractor team individual(s) supporting this task will be cleared at the Top Secret SCI level at the start of the task.” This offeror assumes that individuals with active TS clearances who are SCI eligible are acceptable as the SCI is typically adjudicated at the task order level after award. Is this assumption correct? If no, please clarify.

Section L requires the offeror to describe the proposed team staffing approach for fulfilling USSOCOM’s requirements, including processes to recruit, hire, and retain personnel with the skills and security clearances required to meet the Government’s requirements. It also requires the offerors to provide details on the offeror’s plan to meet transition security requirements. The Government believes offerors will provide adequate information to evaluate the offerors abilities to meet the security requirements in accordance with Section M.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

40 Section L, L.1 General Proposal

Preparation Instructions and

Notices, 1.1 and 1.6, Please clarify the delivery address for the proposal. Section 1.1 indicates 205 S Hoover Blvd, Ste 210, Tampa, FL 33609. Section

1.6 indicates offerors are to call Gary Salava or Dr. Joe Daum for the delivery address.

205 S Hoover Blvd, Ste 210, Tampa, FL 33609 is the correct address.

41 Amendment 1, Section L, Volume

III - Past Performance

Information, III-A Reference Data and

Relevant Experience, page 7

This offeror requests that the completed SF 294/295 be excluded from the page count for Volume III.

The Page Limits have been revised to exclude SF 294/295s from page limits.

42 Attachment 8, SOO for Evaluation HQ

AFSOC/A3OU,

Paragraph 2.0 Purpose, page 1

The SOO states, “The SUASMAN web application is designed to provide units that operate Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS) the tools required to track systems and related equipment, track operator training requirements and status, track and report usage of SUAS.” Request that the Government describe the tools currently used to fulfill this requirement.

There are no tools that currently exist for this purpose.

43 Attachment 8, SOO for Evaluation HQ

AFSOC/A3OU,

Paragraph 2.0

Purpose, page 1

The solicitation states, “The website shall also assist AFSOC with its responsibilities as UAS and UAS airspace lead component tasked by USSOCOM D10-1, AFBD 10-9, and AF approved interim guidance for Small Unmanned Aircraft System (SUAS).” Request the Government provide additional detail on what is meant by “assist” in this sentence.

The website provides real-time status and updates to Time Compliant Manual Changes, safety messages and Certificates of Authorization and Waivers (COA’s); also who is responsible for the COA and contact info. Atch 8 revised.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

Attachment 8, SOO for Evaluation HQ

AFSOC/A3OU,

Paragraph 2.0

Purpose, page 1

The solicitation states, “The website shall also assist AFSOC with its responsibilities as UAS and UAS airspace lead component tasked by USSOCOM D10-1, AFBD 10-9, and AF approved interim guidance for Small Unmanned Aircraft System (SUAS).” Request that the Government provide bidders the AF-approved interim guidance for SUAS as well as USSOCOM D10-1 and AFPD 10-9.

The Website posts manuals, Technical Orders and Air Force Instructions as well a Read File Items. The AF Interim Guidance is the SUAS CONOPS A, B, C posted in the Bidder’s Library.

Attachment 8, SOO for Evaluation HQ

AFSOC/A3OU,

Paragraph 3.2 SOF UAS Web Application

Module, page 1

Request that the Government provide offerors with additional details on the associated reports referenced in the statement, “The application is intended to support the logging of operational and training flight data; track individual qualifications, currency and produce associated reports; track vehicle flight times, and mission status, material status and produce associated reports.”

The application provides metrics and tracking of all Small Unmanned Systems Operators (SUAS-Os) training requirements and flight hours to include the mission types associated with the individual flights. The application is to provide at a glance status of each operator’s training record, flight record summary per air vehicle type and position type. The application is to provide commanders at a glance training status of the unit SUAS-O’s training and flight hour status. The application provides the ability for the SUAS-O to maintain a digital flight record of all training certificates, qualifications, incident reports, flight physicals, and any pertinent flight record information. The application provides individual and unit level status reports known as the 30-60-90 day report or the letter of Xs.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

Attachment 8, SOO for Evaluation HQ

AFSOC/A3OU,

Paragraph 3.3.1, Request that the Government give additional detail about each module listed in the deliverables list in Section 3.3.1. For example, the operations module, training module, COA module, reports module, logistics module, and other modules and tasks as approved through the CCB process.

The application provides logistics metrics and status tracking of all Small Unmanned Equipment and associated equipment; e.g. Radios. The application provides part history of specified components to include flight hours logged on components, status of component, history of system assignment of component, and repair history of component. The application tracks and manages damage of systems and components and notifies designated logistics individuals of damage as soon as it has been logged so parts can be ordered if necessary. The application provides a commanders dashboard for system status; e.g. gives the status of each system per preconfigured status that determines if a system is Fully Mission Capable (FMC), Partially Mission Capable (PMC) or Non Mission Capable (NMC). The application additionally notifies commanders of the reasons why the system has been determined as FMC, PMC, or NMC; e.g. if parts are missing or damaged from the system, a list of missing/damaged parts is provided in a tooltip. The application tracks the transfer and shipping of equipment; e.g. when equipment is transferred a historical record is recorded; if a system must be shipped the application provides a transition history where the shipment tracking history can be viewed such as a UPS number.

47 Attachment 9, SOO For Evaluation

USSOCOM

Intelligence/Imager y Training Support, Paragraphs 3.1.12.1 and 3.1.12.2, page 2

Request that the Government provide a list of SOJICC tools related to 3.1.12.1 and 3.1.12.2.

All available information has been posted in the Bidder’s Library.

48 Attachment 9, SOO For Evaluation

USSOCOM

Intelligence/Imager y Training Support, Paragraph 3.1.13, The SOO states, “Develop advanced training delivery systems in the form of computer based training, “PODCAST” etc. and will be integrated into the POI.” Request the Government describe how CBTs are currently distributed.

The CBT's are currently distributed through Educational Multimedia Manager

(EMMA).

EMMA is an instructor led and network delivered training system used primarily for training USSOCOM SOCRATES intelligence and imagery applications. The interface is similar in function to online university offerings and allows for communication between instructors and students either in near-real time chat or by built-in asynchronous messaging.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

49 Attachment 9, SOO For Evaluation

USSOCOM

Intelligence/Imager y Training Support, Paragraph 3.1.13, The SOO states, “Develop advanced training delivery systems in the form of computer based training, “PODCAST” etc. and will be integrated into the POI.” Does POI refer to one specific course

POI?

The Plan Of Instruction (POI) doesn't refer to one specific course. A POI is a list of lesson objectives and plan of action for delivering training. Since each course in EMMA is unique, they each have its own POI.

50 Attachment 11 SOO for Evaluation PKI

Software Management

Support, Paragraph

2.0 Purpose, page 1

The SOO states, “The work associated with this Task Order shall be completed in the PKI Laboratory.” Please provide additional detail about the location and purpose of this laboratory in relation to this task order.

The PKI laboratory is located at USSOCOM HQ, MacDill AFB, FL

51 Attachments 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 (SOO for each TO), no specific page

Please provide the historical FTE count and skill set or labor categories for each of the five task orders.

The government cannot provide this information.

52 Section L, IV-B Performance Work Statement, page 69

This section instructs offerors to, "include the Task Order SDS table from the Section C PWS in all task PWS submissions." The Section C PWS does not include a SDS nor do the task orders.

Please provide the SDS table.

The PWS has been updated to replace SDS with SLA.

53 Section L, 1.7 Format

Requirement, Page/Section Numbering

Offerors are required to paginate their volumes "sequentially by volume." For the PWS component of Volume IV, does the Government want each PWS to start at page 1 or to be consecutively numbered within that volume (e.g., starting on page 11 for TO 1)?

Each PWS should begin at Page 1.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

Attachment 8 SOO for Evaluation HQ

AFSOC/A3OU,

Paragraph 3.2, page

Request additional details on this task order related to paragraph 3.2, including:

1. What is the high-level software architecture of the web application module, including the programming language and database version?

2. Has a wireless or portable barcode solution been selected? If yes, which ones?

1. The application resides on a load balanced web server with Microsoft Server 2003 as the operating system. The database backend is managed with Microsoft SQL Server 2005 which is currently upgrading to Microsoft SQL Server 2008. The web application is developed with ASP.NET 3.5, and C# and is breaking ground with ASP.NET 4.0.

2. The development team is currently investigating the following Asset Marking and Tracking System to meet the wireless barcode solution: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123237609

55 Attachment 8 SOO for Evaluation HQ

AFSOC/A3OU,

Paragraph 3.3 and 3.3.1, page 1

The SOO states, “The Contractor shall ensure comprehensive software documentation” and then lists a series of deliverables in Section 3.3.1. Request that the Government indicate the status for each deliverable listed (for example, new, existing, update, etc.).

For each version of the application the listed documents must be delivered.

Each document is developed in a CMMI-Level 5 format. If the document does not exist will need to create one. Currently, all documents exist and must be updated accordingly for each delivery.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

Attachment 7 SOO for Evaluation 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment

(Airborne), Paragraph 3.1.1, Request additional detail about the following technical aspects of this task related to paragraph 3.1.1:

1. Is any performance monitoring software in place? If yes, which software?

2. How many instances of SPPS 2003 and MOSS 2007 are there? Does each currently have an ATO?

3. Does documentation exist currently for these systems?

If yes, can the Government make this documentation available to bidders?

4. Does a COOP strategy exist for these systems currently?

If yes, can the Government make this strategy available to bidders?

5. Is any virtualization software in place currently? If yes, which software?

6. What application programming architecture(s) is utilized by SOAR? For example, .Net or J2EE.

7. What help desk software is currently in place?

8. How is the helpdesk operations expected to interface with the SITEC Service Desk?"

1. Solar Winds, MS SCCM, Air Defense

2. Yes, monitoring software is in place. NIPR Portal Medium server farm MOSS Portal with 19 site collection databases (2 WFE's, 1 Analysis/Excel Services, 1 Central Admin/Indexing, 1 Database instance).

1 single-server portal development server 1 IIS 6.0 Web Server 1 IIS 7.0 Web Server (load-balanced between 2 virtual servers) 1 IIS 7.0 development Web Server

3. Yes. No.

4. Yes. No.

5. VM Ware VSphere 4.0

6. .Net

7. Custom MOSS 2K7

8. The SOAR service desk is operated at unit level and traditionally has not interfaced with EITC/SITEC service desk

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

Attachment 7 SOO for Evaluation 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment

(Airborne), Paragraph 3.1.2, Request additional detail about the following technical aspects of this task related to paragraph 3.1.2:

1. How many SQL server farms or instances (by version) are currently in place?

2. What is the requirements or change request backlog?

1. SQL 2005

2 Instances on one cluster (3 nodes) - 25 total databases.

SQL 2008

2 separate clusters (2 nodes each) at FCKY w/ 5 total SQL instances (includes 1 RAMO and 1 Portal), 12 databases excluding RAMO and Portal instance DB's.

1 cluster (2 nodes) at JBLM w/ 2 total SQL instances (includes 1 RAMO), 0 databases excluding RAMO instance DB's 1 cluster (2 nodes) at HAAF w/ 2 total SQL instances (includes 1 RAMO), 1 database excluding RAMO instance DB's

2. None

Attachment 1 Section C, Paragraph 1.1 Service Delivery Summary (SDS), Paragraph 1.1 of the PWS states: “The Application Management Services Contractor(s) shall perform to the standards outlined in this basic contract PWS SDS as well as the specific SDS standards outlined within each awarded task order (TO). The Application Management Services Contractor(s) shall ensure all services are provided efficiently and economically, while providing a quality product or quality service to meet participating entity requirements. The performance metrics utilized under both the basic contract and each task order to ensure all standards are outlined at a high level as part of Section

5.4 – “Performance Management” below and in detail within each subsequent task order.” There is no Performance Management section included with the PWS (Section 5.4 is Task Order Management Methodology). Please clarify or provide the Performance Management section.

The PWS has been updated to replace SDS with SLA. The document referenced is attachment 12

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

59 Attachment 1 Section C, Paragraph 1.1 Service Delivery Summary (SDS), The SDS table appears to be missing from the IDIQ overall PWS document. Please provide the SDS table for the IDIQ as well as for each task order (as appropriate).

The PWS has been updated to replace SDS with SLA.

60 Section H, Clause 952.225-0011, Government Furnished

Contractor Support (JUL 2010) Page 23

& Clause H.10 Contractor Support in War, page 14

The referenced sections state there will be No Government Furnished Contractor Support for U.S. Citizens Accompanying the Force. We understand most of the work under this IDIQ will be performed in the US. However, in Clause H.10, Contractor Support in War, it states, “A few trips to Southwest Asia and CENTCOM Area of Responsibility may be required.” Will the Government consider changing the level of support for those identified trips? For example, entry and exit into Afghanistan cannot occur without MILAIR.

When trips to SW Asia or CENTCOM AOR become firm, the contracting officer will make revisions to the referenced clauses, if required, to include the furnishing of MILAIR and other support.

61 Section I, Contract Clauses, no specific page

FAR 52.222-41 Service Contract Act of 1965 is omitted from this solicitation. This offeror therefore assumes this solicitation is considered exempt from the SCA. Is this assumption correct? If no, please clarify.

SCA does not apply for this solicitation.

62 Section I, RFP H92222-10-R-0046, FAR 52.222-2, Overtime Premiums page 35, and FAR 52.222-4, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act - Overtime

Compensation, page

Request the Government clarify the relationship between these two clauses in relation to overtime pay. Clause FAR 52.222-2 states no overtime premium allowable but Clause 52.222-4 requires time and a half for laborers and mechanics.

Although the government does not anticipate any work performance by laborers or mechanics under this contract, Clause 52.222-4 has been included as a precaution.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

Attachments 8, 10, Personnel Requirements

Referenced sections state: “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 request that the Government consider redefining the key positions in these three initial task orders to minimize the Resume requirement to include only the Task Lead and technical team leads, or to allow offerors to define and justify their own key position(s). The current requirement for all personnel to be proposed as key creates a competitive disadvantage for offerors who are not the incumbent.

All positions are no longer considered key positions. Please refer to clause 5652.237-9001, Key Personnel Requirements.

SOO Packages

As the final solicitation contains 4 more task order ITOs than the previous draft, will the government grant an extension to the current due date?

The government will extend the bid closing date to 4 APR 2011.

65 RFP Section L.1.7, Proposal Submission Requirements Matrix, Amend 1 page 7/original page

In reference to the Past Performance Information Sheets described for Section III-A, should past performance information be submitted from the Prime only or may Offerors include teammate performance?

Past Performance information sheet contracts are not limited to the prime contractor; however, only major subcontractors should be included in the submittal.

66 RFP Section L.1.7, Proposal Submission Requirements Matrix, Amend 1 page 7/original page

In reference to Section IV-A, does the government expect offerors to submit one 10 page Task Order Management proposal covering all 5 task order ITOs (a total of 135 pages for the volume) or does that indicate a limit of 10 pages per task order ITO (a total of 175 pages for the volume)?

Limit is 10 pages per task order.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

67 RFP Section A, SF33 AND

RFP Section L.1.7, Format Requirements Table, Amend 1 page 3/original page

Item 9 of the SF33 indicates that an original and 2 copies of the response should be sent to the government. The directions preceding the Format Requirements Table in L.1.7 state that "The Offeror shall...provide one original and one printed and bound copy of each volume, except for the Volumes II and IV which will have three copies." Which set of instructions is correct?

The SF33 has space and format limitations so Section L.1.7 further delineates the submittal requirement of the government.

68 Attachment 7 SOO (SOAR Application Development), Section 3.1.2

The bullets in this section contain the text "Ensure compliance with DoD Information System Security policies, functionality, and optimization" as bullets 7 and 9. In creating the PWS, should this text be treated as a sub section under the preceding bullets (6 and 8)? If not, will the government provide further instruction on how Offerors should address this repetition?

Atch 7 has been revised to delete the repeated Security bullet.

69 RFP Section L.1.7, Proposal Submission Requirements Matrix, Amend 1 page 4/original page

Per instructions for section I-C Section 2, are offerors required to submit prices for each individual CDRL? Given that many of these CDRLs are as-required at the TO level, how should offerors incorporate CDRL costs into task order prices?

DFAR 215.470 requires Offerors to provide estimated data prices. Prices are estimates only and will not be billed separately.

70 RFP Section L.1.7, Proposal Submission Requirements Matrix, Amend 1 page 4/original page

Per instructions for section I-C If so, should this be done at the contract level or the task order ITO level? Does the government intend for the Offeror to return the entire RFP, including sections that are purely informational and contain no contract data, e.g., Attachment 3, Value Engineering Program?

It is expected that all sections that provide data to the government will be submitted. If part of a section includes no data, then it is not necessary.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

71 Section 7.0 of Task Order ITOs (Attachments 7-11)

In each ITO, the Government provides under Material (Section 7.0) the maximum number of contractor seats the Government will provide for these ITOs. Is this the Government's estimate of the staffing size for those ITOs?

No, it relates to the maximum number of seats available at Government facilities only.

72 Instructions to Offerors in Attachment 7

The Historical Labor Requirements section of this task order ITO references EITC task order #0874 appears to be missing from the bidder's library. Will the government make it available?

EITC Task Order 874 will be added to the Bidder’s Library.

73 General These are Cost Plus Fixed Fee tasks. Small businesses often do not have CAAS-approved accounting systems. May the prime establish labor categories and labor category rates to establish the cost basis?

Small businesses are not required to have CAS-approved accounting systems to propose their labor categories and rates. Subcontractors should propose their costs in accordance with their accounting practices in accordance with the FAR requirements. If they are being awarded a cost type contract they are required to have an approved accounting system for the accumulation of costs.

74 Attachment 12 Application Management SLAs, SLA F4 Staffing Management Timeliness, Section 4B

Section 4B of this SLA states: "Total elapsed time of not more than 4 calendar weeks (i.e., 14 calendar days) to fill any given key position vacancy with appropriately cleared qualified personnel." The timeframes stated are not equal. Is the correct total elapsed time 4 calendar weeks (28 calendar days), 14 calendar days (2 calendar weeks)?

Atch 12 has been revised to state 2 weeks.

75 Attachment 12 Application Management SLAs, SLA F4 Staffing Management Timeliness, Section 4C

Section 4C of this SLA states: "Total elapsed time of not more than 8 calendar weeks (i.e., 28 calendar days) to fill any given key position vacancy with qualified and appropriately cleared qualified personnel." The timeframes stated are not equal. Is the correct total elapsed time 8 calendar weeks (56 calendar days), 28 calendar days (4 calendar weeks)?

Atch 12 has been revised to state 4 weeks.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

76 Attachment 7 SOO (SOAR Application Development), Section 10.0 Personnel

Section 10.0 states "Key Personnel are identified at the basic contract level. Offerors shall provide resumes for key personnel."

Does this mean that offerors do not need to provide resumes with this task order ITO? If resumes do need to be provided for this ITO, will the government specify the position/s for which offerors should submit resumes?

Key personnel have been revised so that all personnel are not key.

77 RFP Section H.6.2-

There is a reference to the SDS table with specific thresholds and performance metrics, but there is no reference to where the SDS table is located in the RFP. Please provide a reference to this table to support completion of this requirement.

The PWS has been updated to replace SDS with SLA.

78 SOO #1, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), Page 3 Historical Labor Requirements

There is a reference to the EITC Task Order #874. We would like to request the historical labor information for this task as this information is not available within the RFP and places the incumbent at an unfair advantage.

EITC Task Order 874 will be added to the Bidder’s Library.

79 SOO #2, HQ

AFSOC/A3OU,

Page 3 Historical Labor Requirements

There is a reference to the EITC Task Orders #895 and 931. We would like to request the historical labor information for this task as this information is not available within the RFP and places the

The government cannot provide this information.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

80 SOO #3,

USSOCOM

INTELLIGENCE/I

MAGERY

TRAINING

SUPPORT, Page 4 Historical Labor Requirements

There is a reference to the EITC Task Order #947. We would like to request the historical labor information for this task as this information is not available within the RFP and places the incumbent at an unfair advantage.

The government cannot provide this information.

81 SOO #4, NSWC

SOFTWARE &

TRAINING

SUPPORT, Page 3, Historical Labor Requirements

There is a reference to the EITC Task Order #948. We would like to request the historical labor information for this task as this information is not available within the RFP and places the incumbent at an unfair advantage.

All pertinent, releasable task information has been posted to the SITEC Bidder’s Library.

82 SOO #5, PKI

SOFTWARE

MANAGEMENT

SUPPORT, Page 4, Historical Labor Requirements

There is a reference to the EITC Task Order #944. We would like to request the historical labor information for this task as this information is not available within the RFP and places the

All pertinent, releasable task information has been posted to the SITEC Bidder’s Library.

83 RFP Section H.9

ASSOCIATE

CONTRACTORS,

Please confirm whether these Associate Contractor Agreements must be submitted with our Proposal response or whether these agreements are a post-award procedure for adding contractors to the initial team?

ACAs shall be submitted to the KO after App Mgt contract award.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

84 DD254, Contract Security Classification Specification, Page 1, block 11b

Where will the contractor receive classified documents that will be used for reference?

At a Government facility only to be identified on each task order DD 254

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

85 RFP Section H.6.2, Page 12, Cost Task Orders

If a contractor does not have an FPRA will non-audited FPRA rates be authorized for an under $200M business? If not, how can we have alternate direct and indirect rates approved for this bid?

For reference please see DCMA guidelines http://guidebook.dcma.mil/41/index.cfm

1. Determine Forward Pricing Rate Requirements

1.1. The ACO shall determine whether a forward pricing rate

agreement (FPRA) or forward pricing rate recommendation (FPRR) will be established. FAR 42.1701(a)

1.1.1. An FPRA is a written agreement negotiated between a

contractor and the Government to make certain rates available during a specified period for use in pricing contracts or modifications.

1.1.2. A FPRR is a set of rates and factors unilaterally

established by the ACO for use by the Government in negotiations or other contract actions when forward pricing rate agreement negotiations have not been completed or when the contractor will not agree to a forward pricing rate agreement.

Labor fringes, escalation factors, scrap, and special tooling are examples of FPFs. (ND) Once a decision is made that a FPRA or FPRR is appropriate the ACO will enter the contractor information into the FPRA eTool application and indicate "yes" in the application that the contractor meets the criteria above.

Yes, non-audited FPRA rates will be reviewed. Contractors should submit their forward pricing rate proposal in support of their proposed FPRA rates.

Unaudited FPRA rates should include the Offeror’s proposed pool and base, along with the assumptions utilized to develop the rates.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

86 SOO #3,

USSOCOM

INTELLIGENCE/I

MAGERY

TRAINING

SUPPORT, Page 4

Should OCONUS travel be considered as part of the training requirement in this SOO?

Yes – Occasionally, contractor trainers will be required to provide end user training on-site at OCONUS locations.

87 RFP Section L.1.7, Proposal Submission Requirements, Page

Per Volume I, Responsibility Criteria, I-A, Offeror Profile and Performance Capabilities, how does USSOCOM define "outsourced" when asking, "% of revenue derived from outsourced managed IT services"? Also, must the Offeror submit % of revenue derived from outsourced managed services for FY's 2008, 2009, and/or 2010?

Fiscal revenue has been revised to read “2009/2010”.

88 SOO #5, PKI

SOFTWARE

MANAGEMENT

SUPPORT, Section 2.0, Paragraph 1, Can you provide a list of the contactor Communities of Interest discussed in this paragraph?

All available information has been posted in the Bidder’s Library.

89 SOO #5, PKI

SOFTWARE

MANAGEMENT

SUPPORT, Section 2.0, Paragraph 1, Where can more information be found on the three security domains discussed in this paragraph?

All available information has been provided in the Bidder’s Library.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

90 SOO #5, PKI

SOFTWARE

MANAGEMENT

SUPPORT, Section 2.0, Paragraph 1, Can you provide a list of DoD PKI Memorandums and Directives referred to in this paragraph?

All available information has been provided in the Bidder’s Library.

91 SOO #5, PKI

SOFTWARE

MANAGEMENT

SUPPORT, Section 3.1, Paragraph 1, Is the use of OCSP permissible in support of a CRL management solution?

The short answer is yes. USSOCOM, as well as most of DoD, uses “Tumbleweed” to perform this function.

92 SOO #5, PKI

SOFTWARE

MANAGEMENT

SUPPORT, Section 3.1.2, Paragraph 1, Where can more information be found on the Knowledge Management System discussed in this paragraph?

The Command standard is SharePoint. Information related to the Command Portal can be found in the Bidders Library.

93 SOO #5, PKI

SOFTWARE

MANAGEMENT

SUPPORT, Section 3.1.7, Paragraph 1, Where can we find more detail on the Focal Point Active Directory?

All available information has been posted in the Bidder’s Library.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

94 SOO #5, PKI

SOFTWARE

MANAGEMENT

SUPPORT, Section 3.1.10, Paragraph 1, Does the service provider (PKI server implementation) need to necessarily exist on Windows are does it need to allow for Windows-based client usage? For example, CRLs, PKI repositories/servers could exist on Unix-based machines.

It just has to be interoperable. For example, OSD servers are Unix-Based.

USSOCOM tries to limit the number of operating systems on our enterprise as a cost saving measure. The Unix talent pool is limited and expensive.

95 SOO #5, PKI

SOFTWARE

MANAGEMENT

SUPPORT, Section 3.1.15, Paragraph 1, How many different security domains? Why not an overarching trust hierarchy with a root CA?

There are three security domains. DoD Root is at SIPR/NIPR, CNSS Root is on SIPR and there is a separate JWICS root for the IC Community.

96 Bidder’s Library Does the government intend to post in the Bidder’s Library the current EITC task orders for 874, and 931? It does not appear they are currently posted.

The Government will post all available EITC task orders in the Bidder’s Library.

97 Section H.6, page

The H.6 guidelines require us to submit an SDS table with each task order response and say to get it from the Section C PWS.

Will the Government please provide the SDS table?

The PWS has been updated to replace SDS with SLA.

98 Section L Proposal Submission Requirements, Volume I-C Contract Forms and Certifications page

Will the Government please clarify what is meant by “CDRL pricing completed” as it pertains to the requirements for Section 2 of Volume I-C?

DFAR 215.470 requires Offerors to provide estimated data prices. Prices are estimates only and will not be billed separately.

U

E S

T

IO

N

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

99 Section L 1.7, Volume III Past Performance Information, page

Please confirm that the SF 294/295s do not count against the 30 page limit for Volume III Past Performance Information.

The Page Limits have been revised to exclude SF 294/295s from page limits.

100 Section M.1.2 page 72 of 76 and M.1.6.2 page 75 of

Paragraph M.1.2 states, “the offered prices under the Task Order Cost Proposal will be evaluated separately.” However, Paragraph M.1.6.2 states, “the Government will calculate a total MPC for by summing the MPC for each Task Order.” Will the Government please clarify whether each task order price will be evaluated separately or whether a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for SITEC AM will be calculated based on the sum of the MPCs for all task orders?

M.1.2 has been revised to indicate that the task order cost will be separated from the Program Management and Task Order Management and…