Question Set - 16 Aug 08.pdf

QUESTIONS AFTER FINAL

1. Reference RFP Section B CLIN 0001: At Industry Day the Government stated that the Transition CLIN would be cost reimbursable. The contract type in the Final RFP is still defined as FFP. Is this correct?

See Amendment

2. Reference RFP Section B CLIN X002: The description of the work to be performed under CLIN X002 implies that this CLIN includes all Enterprise Management effort. Is this CLIN funded through task orders? Is it a sustainment CLIN negotiated for each contract period?

Please clarify the Government’s intent with regard to the authorization and funding of this type of effort.

All CLINs will include those things considered Enterprise Management and all CLINs will be task order driven.

3. Reference RFP Section B CLIN(s) X010 Other Direct Costs and L-3.3: The Government has established cost-reimbursable CLIN(s) X010 for Other Direct Costs and has established an annual value for these costs. However, the pricing instructions still require the Offeror to “Identify the type and amount of other costs to be charged directly to the contemplated contract, which are not included elsewhere in the cost proposal.” Please clarify the following:

a) Are CLIN(s) X010 intended to cover all other direct costs (ODC)? If not, what is not included?

CLIN(s) X010 covers other direct costs that the Offeror(s) has not identified elsewhere in its proposal as ODC, e.g., incidental services for which there is not a labor category specified in the contract, etc. Not included are costs that the Offeror(s) has identified specifically as ODC in its proposal.

b) In the answer to Question #56, received 20 June 2008, the Government stated that the cost-reimbursable material CLIN(s) X008 would not be applicable to FFP or FPI task orders. Do CLIN(s) X010 apply to FFP or FPI task orders?

No it does not apply to FFP or FPI.

c) If ODC dollars for the FFP/FPI task orders are not included in CLIN(s) X010, should the Offeror include an estimate for ODC$ to CLIN(s) X002 and X005 when computing the total values for Section B? If so, since the nature and quantity of Task Orders under these CLIN(s) are unknown, how should the Offeror compute the totals to be included?

Estimated percentages per contract type were provided to industry in the RFP

4. Reference RFP Section C Statement of Objectives Appendix B Security Requirements:

“Contractor team individual(s) supporting this task will be cleared at the Secret level at the start of the task.” Are all contractor team personnel, including vendors, required to possess Secret clearances? If not, recommend this requirement be changed to indicate “Contractor team individual(s) will be cleared to the level appropriate to the task orders they are assigned.”

See Amendment. Keep in mind that Security flows down to all subcontractors.

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 1 of 20

5. Reference RFP Section I: Would the Government please add DFARS 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk to Section I in order to provide additional direction concerning ground related aircraft risks and further define DFARS 252.228-7002 which is already in the RFP?

See Amendment.

6. Reference RFP Section J, Exhibit A, and the corresponding CDRL list attachment:

a) What is the Government intent in including Exhibit A? Are Offerors expected to propose their own list of management reports (reference Section A, Q. from the DRFP)? Is Exhibit A designed to provide the minimum list of reports to propose?

The solicitation provides the types of reports that are received by the Government for insight/oversight today. It is expected that the responses to the RFP will define what types of CDRLs should be provided at the contract level for the performance based services contract.

b) Does the Government intend to provide a corresponding DID for each CDRL listed in Exhibit A?

The Government does not intend to provide DIDs.

c) Section H of the RFP contains DFARS clause 252.234-7002 which requires an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS); however IMS does not appear in the CDRL listing. Does the Government intend to add an IMS to Exhibit A? If so, will the Government provide a corresponding DID?

The Government will not define the requirements – industry should propose what they consider to meet the requirement in their format. The Government will not provide DIDs.

7. Reference RFP Section L-2 (3) Page Limits: Is the page count for Volume II, consisting of Sample Tasks 1, 2 and 3, limited to 100 pages maximum for the entire volume or is each sample task limited to 100 pages for a maximum possible page limit of 300 pages for the entire volume?

100 pages total.

8. Reference RFP Section L-2 (3) Page Limits: Is the Subcontracting plan included in the 250 page limit for Volume I?

The subcontracting plan is not included in the 250 pages and as stated in Section L - it is unlimited in number of pages.

9. Reference RFP Sections L-2.1.4 and L-3.3.2.3: Is the price of transition to be included in the initial proposal submission as indicated in Section L-3.3.2.3? Or, is the price of transition to be only submitted with the Oral Presentation as indicated in L-2.1.4?

The transition cost is part of the CLIN 0001 and part of the oral presentation process.

The cost should not be submitted with the original proposal but follow the direction of the amendment issued.

10. Reference RFP Section L-3.3: The explanation of the 30% absorption pool contained in the Government’s response to Question #5, received 20 June 2008 was not incorporated into the final RFP. Would it be considered compliant with the pricing instructions if the Offeror established a cost center/pool to cover the 30% of the total lease requirement (fixed costs – leases and variable costs - utilities) associated with the Non-SOF workload by estimating its value by applying 1.58% to 30% of the total task order value? If not, please specify the estimated total value to be allocated through this pool.

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 2 of 20

Yes it would be considered compliant to include the cost.

11. Reference RFP Section L-3.3: This section states “All other direct costs, including labor and material shall include appropriate amounts of escalation for the period of performance.”

Should non-exempt labor covered by the Service Contract Act or other wage determinations be escalated over the period of performance?

For purposes of the evaluation you should consider applying an escalation factor across all options.

12. Reference RFP Section L-3.3.2: The Offeror is instructed to estimate the total contract cost and fee that will be used to populate Section B as follows: “The Offeror shall use their estimated direct labor costs, and the Government’s estimated direct material, and other direct costs (specified hours provided in Attachment 27) to arrive at a total contract (by the Government fiscal year) cost, while applying their own appropriate indirect rates, factors and fee to estimate the proposed total estimated contract cost and fee.” Please clarify the following:

a) The answer to Question #56, received 20 June 2008, stated that the cost reimbursable material CLIN(s) X008 would not be applicable to FFP or FPI CLIN(s).

Should the Offeror add materials to CLIN(s) X002 and X005 when computing the contract value for Section B? If so, since the nature and quantity of Task Orders under these CLIN(s) are unknown, how should the Offeror compute the totals to be included?

Estimated percentages per contract type were provided to industry in the RFP

b) “Offerors shall use the Skill Matrix, Attachment 27 in estimating proposed labor costs. The Offeror will create additional worksheets for human resources, custodial, etc. in the same Excel file.” Please clarify the following:

1) Attachment 27 requires the Offeror to insert a single value for fee or profit for each labor category. In accordance with Paragraph L-3.3.3.2, each contract type, as defined by CLIN, requires a different profit or fee rate [“The Offeror’s proposed fee should recognize the varying degrees of risk and challenges for the Contractor in performing different tasks within the PWS”]. How is the Offeror to incorporate the different fee or profit rates? We suggest that Attachment 27 rates be computed through cost only.

The Government is not dictating how the fee rate is established as far as being the same or being different. The expectations are for industry to arrive at the appropriate methodology for the fee rates proposed.

2) A non-incumbent contractor may be able to identify additional labor categories and hours required to perform the Sample Tasks, but without access to job cost history or forecast workload, it is not possible to identify all labor categories or estimate the total hours that will be required for all IDIQ tasks over the entire period of performance. Would it be considered compliant to only add those additional labor categories and hours (if any) utilized in the Sample Tasks provided by the Government?

Being the incumbent has nothing to do with what the objectives are that is stated in the SOO. Expectations are that industry will look at the type of work and determine the proper labor required to execute.

13. Reference RFP Section L-3.3.2.2: The section states: “Subcontracts: submit a listing of the proposed subcontractors showing for each (a) the description of the effort, (b) type of

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 3 of 20 contractual arrangement, and (c) total subcontract price.” Except for subcontracts proposed for Sample Task Orders, the Offeror will be unable to predict the total subcontract price for subcontractors. Will submission and price analysis of subcontractor rate proposals without total subcontract values be considered compliant with this requirement?

The proposal must be compliant with the solicitation.

14. Reference Section L.3.3.2.2 Labor Burdens Health and Welfare: This section states “In addition, the Offeror must address and provide details surrounding health insurance coverage/cost for the basic (current) and all option year periods (future projections) in SCA.”

Since Wage Determinations contain the minimum dollar amounts required for Health and Welfare; and, the SOFSA applicable Wage Determinations were provided (Section J of the RFP) for the positions that are SCA covered, please clarify what is specifically being requested in this Government requirement.

The Offeror must address and provide details for the health insurance coverage/cost for the contract.

15. Reference RFP L-3.3.2.3 Initial Transition Costs: The transition period is defined as 4 months, but the Incumbent Transition Plan specifies 3 months. Is the length of the transition period three months or four months?

Schedule B is the maximum for transition.

16. Reference RFP Section L-3.3.3.4 Profit: “The Offeror shall propose a range of profit to be used when Firm Fixed Price (FFP) task orders are appropriate. Offerors shall complete the FFP task order CLINs in Section B with the proposed profit range. A profit percentage within the profit range will be negotiated on each individual FFP task order based on the risk of performance of that task order.” Section B does not provide for the submission of a proposed profit range. How does the Government intend the Offeror to display the proposed range?

The Offeror shall provide this in their cost proposal for evaluation.

17. Reference RFP Section L-3.3.5 (c) Completed Copy of Manpower Matrix: This Section States: “The Offeror’s cost proposal shall also include: (c) A completed copy of the Manpower Matrix (provided in Section J, Attachment 27). The Manpower Matrix must be identical to the matrix provided in the technical proposal.” The Technical/Management proposal (Volume II) does not require the submission of a Manpower Matrix. For clarity, we recommend the second sentence of this paragraph be deleted.

Concur. See amendment.

18. Reference RFP Section M-4 Area II Factor 1: This paragraph states: “Factor 1:

Reasonableness (Attachment 27). The Offeror’s direct and indirect rates and factors will be evaluated across all years to determine if they are fair and reasonable. The information requested in Section L-3.3.2.2 A-I will be used to determine realistic rates being proposed.”

The Offeror could not locate Section L-3.3.2.2 A-I. Please clarify.

See Amendment.

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 4 of 20

19. Reference Attachment 032: This attachment only lists names of interfaces and GOTS applications with no mention of any COTS products currently owned by the Government to support SOFSA. Please provide the list of Government owned COTS products used to support SOFSA.

See attachment 34.

20. Section L-3.2.1.2 of the RFP states: “The Government’s intent is both to limit the volume of technical information provided for evaluation and to limit the Offeror’s need for extensive detailed technical information.” However, Section M-6.1.4 states “The Offeror has demonstrated a viable engineering design, with associated technical data requirements. A “viable engineering design” requires the completion of engineering analysis including a site survey to determine the extent of the necessary modification. In order to perform such an analysis, all Offerors require the MH-60M technical source data. Recommend Section M-

6.1.4 be modified to state “The Offeror has demonstrated an acceptable engineering approach.”

See Amendment.

21. Section L-3.3.2.1, requests each Offeror “list the straight time and overtime productive labor hours.” Please provide a breakout of the straight time and overtime hours as presented on Attachment 27.

Section H states the normal working hours and Attachment 27 shows the normal hours per year.

22. Section L-3.3.2.1, requests each Offeror “list the straight time and overtime productive labor hours.” Since the Government asked for a list of straight time vs. overtime hours, does the Government expect a separate labor rate on Attachment 27 for overtime?

a) If yes, is the Offeror to provide a separate Attachment 27 for the overtime hours?

b) If no, how should the Offeror present this data?

The Government expects SCA to be followed and only one Attachment 27 should be submitted.

23. Do the specified hours in the labor matrix in Attachment 27 include the small business subcontractor effort mandated in Section L-3.1.5.1? If not, should the Offeror use the previously estimated total contract value of $5B to establish the value of small business subcontracts and include it in the Other Direct Cost (ODC) estimate?

The Government will not dictate how the Offeror should propose.

24. Reference Answers to Questions posted 20 June 2008: Regarding the CLIN values to be entered and submitted by the Offerors in Schedule B:

a) The Government’s answer to question #56 states that the cost reimbursable material CLIN X0008 does not apply to FFP or FPI Task Orders. Since the Offeror cannot estimate tasks that have not been defined, request the Government provide an estimate of the material costs to be included in the FFP and FPI CLINs. Also, does the Government desire that Offerors include some material dollars in the FFP/FPI CLINs in Section B?

The Government provided percentages for the different types of payment provisions for the CLINs

b) Total hours have not yet been provided to Offerors for the labor categories identified in CLIN X006. May the Offeror compute 10% of the total loaded labor (from

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 5 of 20

Attachment 27)/ODC costs as the estimated value of CLIN X006? This approach seems to be reasonable based on the Government’s stated purpose to provide flexibility and allows for the addition of other labor categories in response to future changes in the labor market.

The Government will not disagree or agree with this approach.

25. Reference Attachment 27: FY2009 hours from the Proposal Estimated Hours tab in Attachment 27 are equivalent to a full year of performance. Should not these numbers be adjusted to reflect the shortened period of performance for the contract in FY09?

The Government will evaluate the proposal for reasonableness.

26. The schedule presented at Industry Day shows negotiation of novation agreements beginning March 1. Would the Government consider earlier novation of ongoing task orders as the successful Offeror is able to accept them, provided it is in the best interest of the Government?

The Government will accept an earlier schedule after award.

27. Sections B and L-3.3.3, imply different cost/fee structures; however, Attachment 27 requires labor rates to be provided through profit. Do the specified hours in the labor matrix in Attachment 27 include the small business subcontractor effort mandated in Section L- 3.1.5.1? If not, should the Offeror use the previously estimated total contract value of $5B to establish the value of small business subcontracts and include it in the Other Direct Cost (ODC) estimate?

The Government will evaluate the proposals for reasonableness.

28. Reference the updated Statement of Objectives, Rev 3, posted 15 July, 2008, Section 2.2.2.5: What is the current security accreditation (e.g., - ATO, IATO) status of the SOFSA IT systems?

Currently the SOFSA Network is operating under an Interim Authority to Operate signed on 21 July 2008 expiring on 20 January 2009.

29. Reference Questions and Answers dated 20 June, 2008; questions 102 and 104: What version of Autotime is being used by SOFSA and will it be provided to the contractor as Government Furnished Software?

Current Autotime version is 6.1.02(C1). Autotime is Government owned.

30. May the contractor supply their own computers to connect to their corporate systems within SOFSA buildings, as long as the contractor supplies separate network lines and does not connect the corporate network to the SOFSA network(s)?

Yes, number of computers and locations must be DAA approved. All work for the contract must be performed on the Government supplied network.

What options are available to allow access to contractor IT systems such as payroll and

HR?

No direct/dedicated connections are approved between the SOFSA Network and Contractor systems. If the Contractor's payroll or HR functions are available via web pages then Contractor personnel can use the SOFSA Network to individually access the web sites.

What are the approved Government processes for transfer of files between contractor networks and SOFSA networks?

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 6 of 20

E-Mail, SFTP (after Risk Assessment and DAA approval), and DAA approved USB devices when used in accordance with DoD instructions.

31. Request the Government please clarify its intent regarding this contract year:

a) At what point during the Year 10 does the Government anticipate that the successor contract would be awarded and transition to the successor contractor would begin?

What is the POP for this transition?

The midpoint of year 10 is the prediction. The Government expectation is that year 10 will be the transition year.

b) ”Does the Government expect the Offeror’s Transition Plan to address transition to a successor contractor in Year 10 as well as transition from the incumbent contractor?

No.

32. RFP Reference H.8 and Answer to Question 5 (20 Jun):

a) Is the CLS Services contractor responsible for payment of 100% of the lease and utility invoices to the Department of Military Affairs, or only for payment of the 30% that is collected and put in the Absorption Pool?

No. The company will pay DMA 25% of the total lease requirement that otherwise would have to be collected by the Government. This includes 100% of the lease and utility costs for project specific buildings.

b) If the contractor is responsible for payment of the entire amount, how is the remaining 70% funded?

SOF pays the remaining amount or 75% of the total requirement.

c) What is the current annual cost for the lease?

The total cost of the lease, both the SOF portion and project funded for FY08 is $3,524,886.60

d) What is the most recent monthly cost for utilities?

June's total utilities were $119,728.53. In the winter months it has run upwards to $239,684.72 (January).

e) Clause H.8 specifies that the Absorption Pool includes communications costs as well as lease and utilities costs. What is the annual cost for communications?

FY07 annual cost for telephone was $321,776.36.

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 7 of 20

33. Specifically, does the ITP represent SOFSA's official position on Transition activities, or is it only a CDRL submittal by L3 Communications Joint Operations Group (JOG) in accordance with the current incumbent contract that has yet to be accepted?

The ITP is a CDRL that was delivered to the Government under the current contract.

34. If the current ITP only represents a submitted CDRL, can the Boeing Team submit a Successor Transition Plan that would result in new contract direction to L-3 Communications to address the Government's best interests in a minimal risk Transition?

The Government will request the transition plan via amendment and will only state expectations.

35. Ref: L-2 (3) Page Limits. (Page 138 RFP): There is a 50 page NTE limit for the PWS. The RFQ also states that there is a NTE limit of 250 pages in total for all Plans (Enterprise Management, Business Operations, Program Management, and Subcontracting). To address all of the areas, request an increase in the PWS page limitation to 50 pages per section (Enterprise Management, Business Operations, Program Management, Subcontracting).

The 50 pages are adequate for the PWS. The expectation is that an acceptable plan in each of the areas total of 250 pages will become part of the resulting contract.

36. Enterprise Management: Section 2.2.2 (Page 45 RFP): The section does not make any reference to the SIPRNET --"The Contractor shall provide, maintain, and operate an unclassified IT infrastructure. IT systems shall provide electronic data management tools and capabilities to provide insight into operations by the contractor to SOFSA staff and customers." Yet Security Requirements in Appendix B refers to "Contractor will require access to NIPRNET / SIPRNET computer systems at government and contractor facilities."

Do any innovation or proposed solution components need to consider SIPRNET data or SIPRNET deployment (including TAV, RFID etc)? If yes can the government elaborate and identify the specific components or process that will be impacted?

No. SIPRNet usage at SOFSA is being a user on SOCOM's SIPRNet system. SOCOM allows limited local administrative duties on their SIPRNet system at SOFSA since SOCOM does not have personnel on site. SIPRNet data and capabilities are dictated by SOCOM.

Any change to current SIPRNet usage or capabilities requires coordination and Change Control process from SOCOM.

37. Appendix B – Security (Page 55 RFP): There is reference to Security Related Databases in this section. Are these data bases for identity and access management to system components? Or are they for storage of secure sensitive data? If so can the Government provide more details?

See amendment

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 8 of 20

38. L.3.1.5.2 states in part, “Offerors shall complete the matrix below, listing the percentages of work to be subcontracted (excluding items bought through the purchasing system with the exception of Ability One) and type of work for each type of business. Type of work includes all services to be subcontracted.

Comment/Question 16: The Government has stated that Small Business Targets will be based on percentages of the Total Contract Value. If items bought through the purchasing system can only be targeted for Ability One firms, this means the remaining SB utilization is based on Total Contract Labor (not total contract value). Since SB goals are based on Total Contract Value, in order to meet the specified goals, a larger percentage of the labor must be subcontracted which introduces significant risk to the management and performance of the contract. CLIN 0008, Materials is estimated at $50M per year. Will the Government consider allowing items bought through the purchasing system to count toward SB utilization goals?

The intent is to have a high emphasis on the services to be subcontracted which meets the guidance from OSD ATL. No change is being made to the solicitation at this time.

39. Section H.4 states at least 5% of the dollar value of all subcontracts……..Program.

Comment/Question 1: The term “at least 5% of the dollar value of all subcontracts” indicates that the 5% requirement for the Ability One Program subcontracts should be based on total subcontracted value, not total contract value. Is this a correct interpretation of the Section H.4 Clause?

Total contract value.

40. Section L-3.1.1 PWS contains a subparagraph titled Operations. Section M-4 Factor 1 PWS, paragraph 1.1.3 requires the Offeror to identify the management organization to include mission and functions, operating procedures and techniques, financial accounting system, and management controls. In the June response to questions on the DRFP, response # 32 stated that the operations discussion should appear and be evaluated in the applicable plans (Enterprise Management, Business Operations, and Program Management). These plans are evaluated under Factors 2, 3 and 4

Comment/Question 2: Section L-3.1.1 and the evaluation criteria for Factor 1, PWS paragraph 1.1.3 will require Offerors to identify the management organization to include mission and functions, operating procedures and techniques, financial accounting system, and management controls which are not normally described in a PWS. Will the Government consider deleting Factor 1, paragraph 1.1.3 from the PWS evaluation criteria?

41. The Offeror PWS, which is limited to 50 pages, should be focused on the translation of the SOO items to a PWS. Factor 1 PWS, paragraph 1.1.3 should be deleted from the PWS evaluation criteria.

Agreed. Being moved to Factor 3 – 3.1.6 as this is a critical area for business operations or management for a “GOCO like” facility. See amendment.

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 9 of 20

42. Section L-3.1.1 PWS contains a subparagraph titled Key Functions. This subparagraph states that the Key Functions list will be evaluated in Section M Factors 1, 2 and 3 as appropriate. The Key Functions paragraph further states that the each key function shall be discussed in the plans as required for evaluation in Section C.

Comment/Question 3: Evaluation Factor 1 is the PWS which is not defined as a plan. Will the Government consider deleting Factor 1 and add Factor 4 Program Management Plan to the Key Functions evaluation criteria?

See amendment.

43. Comment/Question 4: The table in Section L.2, paragraph 3, allows 100 pages for Sample

Tasks 1, 2, and 3 excluding the WBS. Is the 100 page limit a total volume page count or 100 pages per Sample Task?

A 100 page limit per Sample Task seems reasonable when considering the evaluation criteria for Factors 4, 5 and 6 and the potential for lengthy PWSs, resource requirements and management plans.

However, if the intent was to limit the entire volume to 100 pages, then the resource estimates information (BOEs), tools & test equipment, facilities, etc., should be excluded in addition to excluding the WBS or the total volume page count should be increased.

The PWS for the sample tasks is not to exceed 100 pages for all three in total. The BOE, etc. is and should be part of the cost proposal which is a separate volume. The Government is confused by this particular comment/question based on the instructions in Section L.

44. The CDRL List does not consistently indentify key required information for each CDRL – such as date of initial submittal (i.e., with proposal, at start of contract, at end of transition, 90 days following award of contract, etc.). Also, although the summary description of each CDRL is useful, there is a lack of other, more detailed information that is essential in order to prepare a fully compliant CDRL and estimate how much resource and time will be required to produce each deliverable CDRL.

Comment/Question 5: Will the Government consider providing additional information with the CDRL List as described above?

Provide additional required information in order to ensure that each Offeror is consistently developing all required CDRLs on a time frame meeting Government objectives, consistent with contractual terms & conditions – and that the resources required to accomplish this can be better estimated across all the Offerors.

The CDRL list was requested. It was stated at that time that the list is a sampling only. The expectations are that the contractor will define adequate CDRLs that match the PWS on information required for adequate oversight by the Government.

45. SOO paragraph 2.2.2 requires the contractor to provide, maintain, and operate an unclassified IT infrastructure.

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 10 of 20

Comment/Question 6a: What is the information architecture of the as-is IT infrastructure /environment?

Comment/Question 6b: Is there a COOP site, and if so, where is it located and does it include hardware and software, in addition to data?

Comment/Question 6c: Is there redundancy and/or mirroring of servers? How often is data backed-up, how, and where?

Please provide this information

6a: A main data center on the BGS campus, some redundant service and drives in a separate building on the BGS campus. Four remote locations utilizing dedicated T-1 circuits back to the BGS campus. Remote locations access NIPRNet/Internet only through the BGS campus NIPRNet connection. Remote location has no other outside connections.

6b: Due to the uniqueness of the operation there is no COOP site. Best effort will be given to reconstitute all services and communication on site.

6c: Most services on the SOFSANet utilize technology to ensure the service is available if a single (and sometimes two) server(s) goes down. The technology differs depending on the service and the operating system it sits on. Data is backed up daily in the standard Grandfather-Father-Son rotation scheme.

46. SOO paragraph 2.2.2.3 requires the contractor to adhere to all DoD requirements for

NIPRNet attached to dot-mil networks.

Comment/Question 7a: Are the current suite of information technology systems and assets operating under an IATO? Are they operating under an ATO?

Comment/Question 7b: Do they have net worthiness certification? What other certifications do they have? What others are required for the future?

Please provide this information.

7a: The SOFSA Network is currently under an IATO that expires in January 2009. An ATO is expected to be signed well before the expiration of the IATO.

7b: The Networthiness Certification Program is a collaborative effort between the Army CIO/G6, NETCOM, and an AIS's sponsoring functional representative. Networthiness certification ensures Automated Information Systems (AIS) utilizing the Army Network are developed in compliance with the Clinger Cohen Act and are secure, supportable, sustainable, and compatible with the Army Enterprise Info structure (AEI) (as defined in AR 25-IA). Each new AIS capability and all capability modifications/upgrades must be assessed to verify/validate its Networthiness (network security, network impact, compatibility with the infrastructure, infrastructure requirements, spectrum support, security policy compliance, JTA-A standards compliance, communications and information manpower, training, logistics support, schedule, and funding). The SOFSA Network is not part of the Army Enterprise Info structure; it falls under USSOCOM and DoD. The SOFSA Network maintains compliance with all DoD regulations, JTF-GNO Tasking Orders, IAVM Process, DIACAP, and USSOCOM regulations as agreed to with the SOFSA DAA.

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 11 of 20

47. SOO paragraph 2.2.3 requires the contractor to administer and support telephone services (consisting of Voice-Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology and STE phone service) to all applicable SOFSA locations, IAW DoD standards.

Comment/Question 8a: Does the current SOFSA contract/environment use VOIP?

Comment/Question 8b: What is its architecture?

Please provide this information.

8a: VoIP is currently being deployed throughout the SOFSA. Remote sites have been first, with the BGS campus coming last. Total deployment is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

8b: Cisco Call Manager, Cisco Unity, Cisco CER, Cisco VoIP Phones, separate VLAN for VoIP traffic, numerous PRI lines to PSTN.

48. SOO paragraphs 1.2 and 2.6.11 indicate that the SOFSA contract will allow for minor construction.

Comment/Question 9: What does the Government consider “Minor Construction” and will this fall under the Davis Bacon Act?

Please provide this information.

At this time approval has not been granted to execute minor construction. However, by the time of contract award it is expected to be delegated to SOFSA Government staff. $1.5M in the case of an unspecified construction project intended solely to correct a deficiency that is life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening;

$750K in the case of any other unspecified minor construction project

Yes, will be subject to DBA.

49. Paragraph H.10 indicates that successful Offeror must agree to accept all obligations and liabilities of the incumbent under the open contracts by virtue of this Novation.

Comment/Question 10a: In reference to the Novation of any open contracts and all active task orders, is it the Government’s intent for the successful Offeror to take responsibility for only the open task orders and not the entire USZA22-03-D-0006 and 03-C-0056 contract?

Comment/Question 10b: How will those active task orders which are physically complete but subject to closeout be handled?

Please clarify.

10a: No, responsibility is for the entire contract.

10b. This will be answered during oral proposals based on approach of transition.

50. L.3.1.1 States in part, “The Offeror shall discuss any innovative management and business practices proposed for SOFSA implementation. Cost/cost savings associated with proposed

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 12 of 20 innovations/efficiencies shall be identified in the proposal in accordance with Section L.3.3.4.”

L.3.3.4 States in part, “The Workforce Matrix in Attachment 27 shall serve as a baseline for the Offeror’s operational approach.”

Comment/Question 11: Is it the Government’s intent that Offerors should modify the Government’s estimated hours in Attachment 27 to accurately reflect any proposed innovations and efficiencies?

The Government expectation is that industry will follow the instructions of Section L. If cost savings were associated I would probably show additional sheets to reflect innovation and efficiencies and I would back it up with appropriate information.

51. L.3.3.2 States in part, “Offerors shall use the Skill Matrix, Attachment 27 in estimating proposed labor costs. The Offeror will create additional worksheets for human resources, custodial, etc. in the same Excel file.”

Comment/Question 12: Are these additional worksheets to present indirect labor which may be included in a burden rate?

The Government will not tell you how to propose or fill out the worksheets. The example given could be indirect labor depending on your approach to the PWS.

52. CLIN 0009 and all Technical Data CLINs in Section B state in part, Technical Data is NSP.

Section L.3.3.2 states in part, “Offerors shall breakout their estimated data prices for each data item identified on the DD Form 1423s attached in Section J, and those submitted by the Offeror IAW DFARS 215.470 and SOFARS Clause 5652.215-9005, Estimated Prices for Data incorporated in this section of the RFP.”

Comment/Question 13: Are Offerors required to separately price Technical Data?

Please clarify

CLIN 0009 will not be separately priced on the contract itself, but Offerors shall include the price/cost of the data in their proposals. Individual task orders will delineate the specific CDRL requirements and the cost of the data will be included in the individual task order pricing. The goal of the Government is to control technical data to what is required only based on the PWS submitted.

53. L-3.3.5 requires that the Offeror’s cost proposal shall also include: (c) A completed copy of the Manpower Matrix (provided in Section J, Attachment 27). The Manpower Matrix must be identical to the matrix provided in the technical proposal.

Comment/Question 14: What matrix provided in the technical proposal is this requirement referring to?

54. SOO paragraph 4.1 states in part, “4.1 The Government will provide equipment, material, and information that is readily available. Attachment (1) will list all government furnished equipment and material. Attachment (2) will list all government furnished information (software and intellectual property).

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 13 of 20

Comment/Question 15: When will Attachments (1) and (2) be available?

Please clarify.

55. Page 146 Section L-3.3.2.3, Initial Transition Costs states: “The Offeror shall separately propose the initial transition costs over and above those costs estimated for other contract performance.”

Does the government intend to evaluate transition costs and, if so, where in Section M is the evaluation criteria described?

Area III Cost/Price Evaluation, Factor 2 Total Evaluated Cost/Price (Sample Tasks)

56. The RFP has changed the PWS page limit to 50 pages, from 250 that were cited in the DRFP. 50 pages does not provide sufficient space to adequately describe an unequivocal understanding of the objectives in the SOO, especially with the required inclusion of PWS requirements taking upward of 10 of the allocated 50 pages.

Would the Government increase the page limit of the PWS from 50 pages to 150 pages to allow the contractor to fully describe their understanding of the SOO and to be able to accommodate performance based contracting?

50 pages should be sufficient

57. Will the Government exempt the recitation of Section C requirements from the PWS page count?

The Government will not tell industry how to address Section C requirements in the PWS. The PWS will become Section C of the basic contract upon award.

58. It appears the Operations requirement referred to at the top of page 140 is not identified as an evaluation factor in Section M.

Where are the Operations requirements to be addressed in Volume I?

Business Operations Plan

59. In the NOTE, it states the Key Function/personnel will be done in Section M Factors 1, 2, and 3. It would appear the evaluation areas should be M Factor 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Under what Section does the government intend Offerors to identify key personnel, to include resumes and other descriptive data?

This is the Offerors decision to provide details to meet requirements.

60. Section L-3.2 – Volume II Sample Tasks – states “The Offeror will be expected to propose which type of payment provisions (CPFF, CPIF, FFP, FPIF, Cost, and LH) using Section B, would provide the best value to the Government based on the work to be performed.”

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 14 of 20

Does Section L.3.2.2 mean that an Offeror may choose which type of payment provision it elects to propose for each sample task? Yes

If the Government intends to allow an Offeror to choose the type of payment provision for each sample task, how will the evaluators make an “apples-to-apples” comparison between Offerors?

Under a best value approach cost is not the only factor.

61. Section L-3.3.2 describes Attachment 27 as the Offeror’s baseline operational approach.

Is it correct that Attachment 27 should not include innovation savings and will serve as the government’s cost baseline?

[answered above]

62. The RFP states “Under this arrangement, it is estimated that 15% of the work will be CPIF, 35% estimated for CPFF, and 30% estimated for FPIF. The remainder is estimated to be 10% Labor Hour and 10% Fixed Price. These percentages apply per year. The Offeror shall present the estimated cost, fee structure, labor hour structure and price in Section B, per appropriate CLIN using the cost data being evaluated “.

Given that Offerors are to complete Section B (Section 3.3.5), how are the percentages from Section L-3.3.3.1 to be applied?

The answer to this question is stated in the RFP as you indicate above.

63. Offerors are required to propose a range of profit for FFP task orders. There is no indication how the government will take into account the different profit ranges competitors will propose.

How does the government intend to evaluate profit ranges among Offerors?

Competition will be a factor as well as using the Weighted Guidelines Method.

64. Attachment 27 includes a “Rate Burden Sheet” for FY09 through FY18. The sheet includes a single column for profit. Section M Area Factor 2 states that Offerors should use Attachment 27 rates for pricing sample tasks. The profit/fee percentage will vary depending on the contract type selected. Therefore, the priced labor rates (included profit/fee) will vary depending on contract type.

Is it the intention of the government for the contractor to complete the profit column on attachment 27?

Yes

If so, given there’s a choice of contract types, how are Offerors to complete the fee/profit column in attachment 27?

Not sure of the question. You can expand and show contract type above the profit to state the different profits being proposed.

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 15 of 20

65. Sample Task 001 has a scope to modify 70 aircraft. The Offeror provides a project schedule. When 70 aircraft are modified, the task is complete. Section M, Area III, Factor 2 states sample tasks will be evaluated over 10 years.

Are Offerors to bid a 10-year period of performance or only the schedule/cost it will take to complete the scope of

ST001?

The basic task order cost will be escalated by the going rate over the 10 year period.

66. Sample Tasks 2 and 3 do not provide a period of performance. Section M Area III. Factor 2 is unclear as to whether the government or contractor will calculate the 10 year Total Evaluated Price.

All sample tasks are 12-months. See above for the answer to Factor 2.

Is it the government’s intent for the contractor to bid the sample tasks over the full 10-year period? If not, what period of performance should the contractor bid?

See above.

67. Sample Task 002 Paragraph 2.2.2 states “The contractor is responsible for developing a three-year plan....” Subsequent paragraphs identify specific items to be accomplished such as a Central Data Repository solution.

Are Offerors to only include the cost to; a) develop a 3-year plan or, b) develop the plan, and then implement the tasks of the plan?

Development of the plan.

68. Section B includes a column heading of “Max Amount” and a row heading of “Max Net Amt”

What is intended with the term “Net Amt” versus “Max Amount”?

This is a Standard Procurement System (SPS (Govt system)) issue. There is no difference.

69. Is Section B requiring cost and fee to be listed separately?

Yes

70. Section H, page 60, paragraph H.8 states “…the absorption pool shall include 25%....”

Section L, page 144, paragraph L-3.3 states that the Government…”requires a 30% absorption pool…”

Is the 25% listed in H8 the correct value?

71. Throughout the RFP there are references to the Progress Payments clause; ex. Pg. 78 of

163, FAR Clause 52.216-16(g) (1) (iv) (2), but Progress Payments clause 25.232-16 is not included in Section I.

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 16 of 20

Progress Payments will be necessary as the method of payment on FFP task orders. Please include the Progress Payments clause 52.232-16 in Section I.

The Government does not agree that progress payments are required for FFP. See 52.232-1 Payments.

72. Page 145 of 163, L-3.3.2.2 Labor Burdens

Section identifies Labor Burdens that coincide with Attachment 27. Section includes a paragraph for subcontract requirements

Are subcontract requirements as a subparagraph to Section L-3.3.2.2 correct? Or, are subcontract requirements separate and distinct from Labor Burdens?

See Amendment

73. At the top of page 154, it appears the parenthetical (Factors are in descending order of importance) are unnecessary.

Noted.

74. The Factor order for Past Performance suggests that Contract Performance is more important than Relevancy when evaluating Past Performance. Area IV’s Rating Methodology on page 160 states Relevance will be evaluated first with performance on the relevant contracts being evaluated second. Contractors should first, and most importantly, establish relevancy of its chosen contracts, then be evaluated on their performance on those contracts.

Should the parenthetical from page 154, Area IV Factors, be removed?

75. Factor 1 states “The information requested in Section L-3.3.2.2 A-I will be used to determine realistic rates being proposed.” There is no A-I contained within L-3.3.2.2.

Please clarify.

76. Attachment 27 identifies SCA labor categories for” Accounting Clerk IV” and “Aircraft QC

Inspector”. However these labor categories are not included in the associated Wage Determination rates for Fayette and Madison, KY

What rates should Offerors use to complete Attachment 27 for these labor categories?

Industry should follow the instructions provided on the Wage Determination

77. Attachment A identifies that the proposal should be delivered to Bluegrass Station KY, and

Section L identifies the proposal should be delivered to MacDill AFB. Please clarify.

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 17 of 20

78. Section C, SOO, Para. 2.2.10 states: “The DD Form 254, listed in Section J as attachment

028 is applicable. The highest level of classification is TOP SECRET with the large majority of task orders being at the SECRET level.”

Are only US citizens authorized to work directly on the contract?

Yes, without appropriate waiver.

79. Section C (SOO) paragraph 2.6 states “…core capabilities listed below (paragraphs 2.3.1 thru 2.3.9 below and…)”. Believe the correct paragraph references should be “2.61 thru 2.6.9”

Should this be changed in the RFP?

80. Section C (SOO) paragraph 4.1 states that “Attachment (1) will list all government furnished equipment and material. Attachment (2) will list all government furnished information (software and intellectual property).”

As defined within Section J, Attachment 001 to the RFP deals with Key Personnel and Attachment 002 is an SF 1413.

Is Attachment (1) as described in Section C para 4.1, the same as Attachment (26) provided with the RFP? Is Attachment (2) the same as Attachment (32)?

See Amendment. .

81. Will Offerors be required to submit the GFE/GFM list as part of their proposals?

Only the incumbent would have this list. The answer is no.

82. The answer to question #30 of the DRFP indicated that the bold statement at the end of paragraph 5 concerning the contractors authority to change engineering data, etc., would apply to all core areas and that the SOO will be updated.

It would appear that the change to the SOO was not updated. Would the Government update the SOO to reflect that the restriction on contractor changing data applies to all Core Capabilities?

83. Clause 5652-2054- 9003 Clause Currency The most recent release date of this clause is

2007 (see DRFP Q&A #36) Should this be changed in the RFP?

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 18 of 20

84. Clause 52.222-43 Clause Correction The word “Contract” should be added after Option.

(see DRFP Q&A #38) Should this be changed in the RFP?

85. Clause 252.225-7040 Clause Currency The most recent release date of this clause is Mar

2008 (see DRFP Q&A #45) Should this be changed in the RFP?

See Amendment.

86. Clause 5652.201-9001 Clause Currency The most recent release date of this clause is 2005 vice 2000 (see DRFP Q&A #46) Should this be changed in the RFP?

See Amendment.

87. Clause 5652.201-9002 Clause Currency The most recent release date of this clause is 2005 vice 2000 (see DRFP Q&A #47) Should this be changed in the RFP?

See Amendment.

88. Clause 5652.204-9002 Clause Currency The most recent release date of this clause is 2005 vice 2000 (see DRFP Q&A #48) Should this be changed in the RFP?

See Amendment.

89. Clause 5652.243-9000 Clause Currency The most recent release date of this clause is 2006 vice 2005 (see DRFP Q&A #50) Should this be changed in the RFP?

See Amendment.

90. L-2.2.2 Clause Currency DRFP Q&A #62 indicated that Arial size 11 point font and 8 point font for graphics may be used. This was not updated in the RFP. Should this be changed in the RFP?

L-2.2.2 states “no smaller than 11 characters per inch, using Arial except as provided in Section 2.2.7.” L-2.2.7 states “For tables, figures, graphics, process diagrams, and methodology no font smaller than 8 will be used.”

91. Clause 52.211-14 Clause Currency The most recent release date of this clause is Apr 2008 and the title has changed to Notice of Priority Rating of National Defense Emergency Preparedness, and Energy Program Use (see DRFP Q&A #50) Should this be changed in the RFP?

92. Clause 5652.209-9002 Clause Currency The most recent release date of this clause is 2006 vice 2005 (see DRFP Q&A #52) Should this be changed in the RFP?

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 19 of 20

16 August 2008 Solicitation Number H92254-08-R-0001 Page 20 of 20

93. The Offeror shall address the type of work and the NAICS code that will be offered to subcontractors and with special emphasis on the use of Ability One Program for this contract. The NAICS will be reviewed by the Government to ensure it is applicable to the work being subcontracted and offers maximum opportunity for small business participation.

Base all small business targets, to include JWOD, on percent of total subcontracted dollars with a minimum of 15% of total contract value being subcontracted to…