ResponseToQuestionsReceived-v5_20220926_Final.docx

1. Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (like, from India or Canada)

Answer: The solicitation does not contain a per se prohibition on entities located outside of the United States from submitting a proposal. However, potential offerors should note, among other things, the citizenship requirements in Section 8 of the Performance Work Statement and clauses such as 52.225-13, 52.209-10, and 252.239-7010.

RFP change: none

2. Whether we need to come over there for meetings?

Answer: See PWS Sections 7 and 10. There will be meetings scheduled at the Government’s facilities including the Mark Center in Alexandria, VA, and at U.S.-based military facilities and installations.

RFP change: none

3. Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (like, from India or Canada)

Answer: See PWS Section 8 and the clauses in the solicitation.

RFP change: none

4. Can we submit the proposals via email?

Answer: Yes. See the addendum to FAR 52.212-1(b).

RFP change: none

5. Can you please confirm whether any official security clearance is required for any of the employees (e.g. Secret, Top Secret)? Currently, I understand that the following statement from the RFP is all that will be required of employees and no official clearance level is required; "a new application for a dod t3 bi for position of trust determination requires fbi fingerprints check, proof of us citizenship and a personnel security questionnaire".

Answer: Contractor employees must have favorably adjudicated background and personal security investigations. See PWS Section 8.

RFP change: none

6. Please confirm all personnel must be US citizens (as is required for a T3), not just personnel with the IT accesses listed in section 8.2.

Answer: Contractor employees working on this contract must be U.S. citizens. See PWS Section 8.

RFP change: none

7. The RFP requests that bidders list all staff holding Security+. Will bidders receive more favorable evaluations for staff holding such certifications?

Answer: See the addendum to FAR 52.212-1(b)(ii), Subfactor 2, and addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 2.4.2. Offerors must have Security+ for all staff that fall within the Cyber Workforce category and subject to the DoDI 8570.01-M requirement for IAT-II/IAM-I position designation and functions. Offerors must possess and demonstrate compliance per DoDI 8570.01-M in order to qualify for contract award.

RFP change: none

8. Will Sample Task 2 be awarded?

Answer: No, Sample Tasks are for evaluation purposes only.

RFP change: none

9. Is a pricing proposal required for Sample Task 1, Sample Task 2, or both?

Answer: A price proposal is required for Sample Task 2. See the addendum to FAR 52.212-1(b)(ii) Subfactor 4.

RFP change: none

10. Confirm that small business prime contractors need not submit a subcontracting plan and that no firm will be awarded evaluation points for this subfactor - the subfactor is a pass/fail requirement for large businesses submit the subcontracting plan required by FAR Part 19.

Answer: See FAR 19.702(b), small businesses are not required to submit subcontracting plans. A small business prime will not be evaluated unfavorably for not having a subcontracting plan.

RFP change: none

11. "Multiple task orders on a single contract will NOT be considered as multiple past performance…" Confirm "single contract" does not include GSA schedule or GWACs Answer: Single contract means a single award IDIQ. GSA and GWACs are not single award contracts.

RFP change: none

12. "At least one commercial reference is highly encouraged." Will offers receive more evaluation points if they provide a commercial reference? Does a "commercial reference" include work performed on a federal contract as a subcontractor to a commercial prime?

Answer: There are no points. Performance on relevant, recent commercial efforts may affect the government’s expectation that the offeror will successfully perform this effort. Commercial work does not equal work on a federal contract as either a subcontractor or a prime.

RFP change: none

13. "Past performance of the offeror, its subcontractors and its Key Personnel will be considered, however at least one reference must be from the offeror performing as a Prime contractor." Will the source of a past performance count in evaluation, i.e., will a reference from the offeror count more than a reference from a subcontractor? May offerors provide past performance from subcontract personnel?

Answer: Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with the addendum to FAR 52.212-2.

RFP change: none

14. How are Key Personnel defined? Which roles does the DoD consider key?

Answer: The Offerors determine which personnel are Key Personnel for their performance of the contract.

RFP change: none

15. May a CPARS be substituted for a past performance questionnaire?

Answer: No. See the addendum to FAR 52.212-1(b)(iii).

RFP change: none

16. "Past performance of the offeror, its subcontractors and its Key Personnel will be considered, however at least one reference must be from the offeror performing as a Prime contractor." Confirming the government acknowledges past performance from a member of a joint venture is past performance performed as a prime contractor.

Answer: If the joint venture itself submits the proposal, the government may evaluate the past performance of the JV members. The government will not evaluate JV past performance information if submitted to demonstrate the past performance of individual JV members.

RFP change: none

17. For the "Joint Leads Return Postage" and the "Joint Leads Data Entry," can the government provide an expected annual total of records for each category that will need to be processed?

Answer: An average of 20,000 Joint Leads required return postage and data entry annually prior to COVID 19. Although, over the past two years, COVID 19 has decreased this number.

RFP change: none

18. Is there an estimated volume of activities related to "with branding, advertising, and marketing support" for non-OSD programs including FVAP, SAPRO, DCPAS etc.?

Answer: Historically these activities occurred infrequently, and involved one-off direct marketing campaigns or radio spot production/distribution.

RFP change: none

19. As the contractor performs a full range of marketing and advertising for JAMRS, to best "complement" and "support" those marketing and advertising activities with other recruiting and retention efforts of other Military Services, would the contractor have access to the marketing and media plans of all other Military Services?

Answer: Available data from the Service marketing plans are typically very broad and general in terms of channels and spend.

RFP change: none

20. What is the annual paid media budget for JAMRS?

Answer: Annual paid media budgets have fluctuated greatly, from $38M in 2018 to $15M in 2022.

RFP change: none

21. What is the current channel allocation of the paid media budget for JAMRS (e.g., Linear TV, Radio, Digital, Social, OTT, OHH, etc.)?

Answer: The plan varies each year based in part on media plan recommendations from the contractor, but a general overview is Linear TV– 50%; Streaming Video (CTV/OTT/FEP/VOD) – 20%; Programmatic Digital/Audio – 15%; Social – 15%.

RFP change: none

22. What are the annual unique visitors to each of the three targeted websites, and total page views for each website annually?

Answer: In FY21, there were 5.3M visits to and 8.4M page views on TodayMilitary.com; 1.7M visits to and 3M page views on MyFuture.com; and 247K visits to and 482K page views on MedicineandtheMilitary.com.

RFP change: none

23. What platforms are in place and currently used by either JAMRS or its current agency to monitor the three websites (e.g., Google Analytics, Adobe Analytics, etc.)?

Answer: Google Analytics, Decibel, and Adelaide have been used in the past.

RFP change: none

24. What entity resolution is currently used to combine the disparate data sources (e.g., Joint Leads, High School Master File [HSMF], College File, and the Selective Service System [SSS] file)? Is it home grown or a 3rd party software solution? Will it continue to be available? Is the government happy with it or are they looking for improvements to the current process?

Answer: The Government does not combine Joint Leads, High School Master File, College File, and the SSS into one overall dataset and does not desire to combine these sources but does scrub for suppression.

RFP change: none

25. Re: 4.9 of the PWS. Our default is to use PGP encryption for secure file transfer. Is that a format you are currently using or able to use? Will we be receiving more detailed requirements regarding file formats and processing locations and transfer locations?

Answer: For proposal submissions, all files shall be submitted via email. All communications and file transfers in regards to 4.9 must be done using secure, agency-approved methods, tools, and encryption standards. Where required to encrypt data in transit, DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil) should be used in order to safeguard information while transferring data between authorized parties.

RFP change: none

26. Are there existing commercial vendors for data purchase that we are required to use or can we source the data through our relationships and active contracts?

Answer: The Government has no required commercial data vendors; potential offerors may recommend sources to meet the requirement.

RFP change: none

27. What are the field requirements for the college files? Will the government need school, graduation year, as well as major or just basic PII?

Answer: See System of Records Notice DHRA 04: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/16/2019-22562/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records.

RFP change: none

28. What is the use case for the Educator List?

Answer: The Educator List is used for direct marketing (postal mail, email) to public high school and community college counselors.

RFP change: none

29. For Suppression Data Entry, is the data unit for pricing considered the full list for suppression with each submission or is each data unit an individual name for suppression?

Answer: A data unit equals an individual name.

RFP change: none

30. For the entry "Web Hosting - AWS Enterprise Support" can the government provide requirements for this item as well as current annual spending for this service?

Answer: Requirements include hosting of the production environment, responsibility for availability and functionality of the production and campaign environment, and restriction of access to PII. Offerors should propose Other Direct Costs they think are appropriate for this requirement.

RFP change: none

31. For the entry "Monthly System Configuration Fee - AWS GovGloud IL4; 25 servers; 1024 GB RAM; 20 TB storage," what Cross Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) and/or Operating Systems (OS) are currently running? Are servers currently available 24/7? Can the government also provide current annual spending for this item?

Answer: There are currently no CORS instances within either the database or OPA.mil. Applicable to the database only, either MS Windows Server version 2019 or later and CentOS version of Linux. Servers are available 24/7. Offerors should propose what they think is appropriate for this requirement.

RFP change: none

32. For the entry "RMF Certification Scans & STIGs. - AWS GovGloud IL4," can the government provide requirements for this item and current annual spending?

Answer: See PWS Section 8 and applicable reference material listed in the PWS for requirements. Based on historical estimates, the Government estimates 250 - 520 IT labor hours.

RFP change: none

33. For the entry "Monthly RMF Patching - AWS GovGloud IL4; Labor to patch security vulnerabilities based on RMF scans" can the government provide requirements for this item and current annual spending?

Answer: Requirements include maintenance and production support including monitoring of the environment, risk management, issue management, change management (help desk ticketing), and reporting. Based on historical estimates, the Government estimates between 255-520 IT labor hours.

RFP change: none

34. For the entry "Hardware & Software Updates - CASS, Helpdesk Ticketing System, GitLab Enterprise, Splunk Enterprise, SQL Server & Sentry, Globalscape, F5 Big IP, Campaign Management" can the government provide requirements for this item as well as the current annual spending for this item?

Answer: The requirement for Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) products listed here stem from the functional and business requirements that have been implemented to meet specific mission objectives of the system. An annual amount spent on the licenses required to maintain the software and receive timely updates is part of the contractor’s Other Direct Expenses (ODE) total.

RFP change: none

35. In the entry "Data Services & Account Management - Senior Delivery Manager, Solution Manager, Production Development Lead, Developer/Operations Manager, Developer/Operations Analyst, Campaign Specialist, Business Intelligence Specialist; storage & disposal; data transmission" for the portion of the entry that includes "Data Services & Account Management - Senior Delivery Manager, Solution Manager, Production Development Lead, Developer/Operations Manager, Developer/Operations Analyst, Campaign Specialist, Business Intelligence Specialist" can you validate that all of these are labor categories for professional services? Can the government provide requirements for this item, and as you have done for other labor categories, can you provide an expected level of effort in annual hours expected to complete the tasks? Can the government also provide requirements and current annual spending for "storage & disposal, data transmission"?

Answer: Please see PWS 4.9 for requirements. A range of between 5,000-6,000 labor hours is estimated. Minimal cost for storage and disposal associated with Joint Leads.

RFP change: none

36. With regard to references to Risk Management Framework (RMF) and Authority to Operate (ATO), How many systems/accreditations need support? I.e., is it one accreditation boundary/ATO or multiple? What is the status of the current ATO(s)? Will the team be coming in to support at RMF Step 0 (Prepare) or will they be supporting RMF Step 6 (Continuous Monitoring)? If the system is currently in Step 6, how many years are left before re-accreditation is required? What is the system(s) current security categorization? What is the size of the current ATO boundary? I.e., how many assets are within the HW/SW list of which the contract team is solely responsible for?

Answer: This contract will support two authorized systems (i.e. two accreditation boundaries) that have an Authority To Operate (ATO). Current systems’ ATO status is valid and active. The systems are in the Continuous Maintenance phase (Phase 6). The systems have 2 more years before re-accreditation. One of the systems is categorized as M/M/L for C/I/A, while the other is categorized as L/L/L. The system with M/M/L categorization contains about 30 virtual assets and about 50 application/software assets that include OS, virtual devices’ applications and licenses, as well as database software, and development tools. The other system is hosted in GSA’s Cloud.Gov PaaS (L2) environment and relies on the hosting platform for the assets’ virtualization.

RFP change: none

37. For the Other Direct Expense entries related to AWS services, what is the relationship with AWS and its associated FEDRAMP accreditation? How many controls within the security control baseline are inherited from the existing AWS FEDRAMP ATO? Who is currently listed as the Authorizing Official (AO)? Who is responsible for filling the role(s) of the validator / security control assessors?

Answer: The system under contract utilizes AWS GovCloud IaaS (L4). As such, the system currently receives 75 controls and 264 Assessment Procedures. DHRA’s CIO is the Authorizing Official (AO) for the system under contract. DHRA Cybersecurity Division and its contractor are fulfilling the role(s) of validators and security control assessors.

RFP change: none

38. What level is the security baseline for the NIST SP 800-53 R4?

Answer: The system is baselined at NIST SP 800-53 Revision 4.

RFP change: none

39. Why is Rev. 4 cited when the current version is Rev. 5?

Answer: Revision 4 is the baseline established by DISA within an Enterprise tool used across DOD and called eMASS (Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service).

RFP change: none

40. Does the government require the evidence of authorization described in the subparagraph, (POA&M, etc.) be presented with the proposal, or on award?

Answer: Evidence of authorization must be presented prior to implementing a new solution that has no ATO. Also, see answers to questions 99 and 100.

RFP change: See revised PWS 8.22.1.

41. Does the government require the subcontractors' plans of action described in the subparagraph be presented with the proposal, or on award?

Answer: Evidence of authorization must be presented prior to implementing a new solution that has no ATO. Also, see answers to questions 99 and 100.

RFP change: See revised PWS 8.26.2 and 8.26.3.

42. Does the government require "Evidence of DISA authorization" be presented with the proposal, or on award?

Answer: Evidence of authorization must be presented prior to implementing a new solution that has no ATO. Also, see answers to questions 99 and 100.

RFP change: See revised PWS 8.29.1.

43. Due to security and file size concerns, can we send our submission via our encrypted File Exchange which will include link(s) to download our supporting materials, instead of emailing them as attachments per your instruction?

Answer: All proposals must be submitted via email. The size limit per email is 22MB. Multiple emails may be submitted.

RFP change: See revised Addendum to 52.212-1.

44. Should a new vendor be awarded the contract, what is the anticipated timeline for the transitional period?

Answer: See PWS 4.19.

RFP change: none

45. The RFP states on page 34 “Demonstrate experience executing a multi-million-dollar media plan with over half of the spend devoted to National TV advertisement placement that includes broadcast (i.e., non-Cable) TV.” Would this experience include streaming and/or OTT? Or is this specific to traditional broadcast only?

Answer: Half of the spend must be devoted to Linear National TV advertisement, some of which must have been spent on broadcast TV. The other half of the spend can include streaming video and/or OTT.

RFP change: See revised addendum to 52.212-1

46. Are there any requirements for font, font size, and margins?

Answer: Added to the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

RFP change: See revised the addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

47. Does pricing for sample tasks 1 & 2 belong in Vol I or Vol II? If in Vol II, what format should it be in?

Answer: Submit pricing in contractor format.

RFP change: See the revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1

48. Does the final proposal need to be emailed only?

Answer: See answer to Question 43

49. Is PDF format acceptable for final delivery of the three volumes?

Answer: Yes, except for the Excel pricing sheets

RFP change: See revised addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

50. Is there an attachment size limit for the proposal submissions? If the package of attachments exceeds the size limit, would the Government accept having the Offeror splitting the email into smaller emails?

Answer: See answer to Question 43.

51. Can each of the Volumes be sent together in one email or would the Government like for the Offeror to separate the volumes in email submission?

Answer: See the answer to Questions 43 and 50

52. Are there any page limitations for Volume I?

Answer: No, include information in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(b)(i).

RFP change: none

53. Do section page dividers count towards the page counts in Volume II?

Answer: Yes

RFP change: none

54. Is there a page limit for the small business subcontracting plan?

Answer: No

RFP change: none

55. Is there a desired format for the small business participation plan?

Answer: See the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Subfactor 8.

RFP change: none

56. Is the incumbent permitted to use JAMRS as one of their case studies?

Answer: This is a decision of the offeror.

RFP change: none

57. What does the government feel the most successful and least successful content campaigns that JAMRS has run have been?

Answer: The Influencer campaign is one of the Government’s most successful recent efforts. The campaign won a 2022 EFFIE Award for Sustained Success over a 3-year period. Other JAMRS outreach efforts are considered equally successful including outreach to school counselors through the annual publication Futures, as well as cyber career direct mail/email campaigns to counselors.

RFP change: none

58. Is the incumbent permitted to use JAMRS in their past performance questionnaire?

Answer: This is a decision of the offeror.

RFP change: none

59. In the sample tasks (direct marketing & PR), the dates listed in 5.0: Deliverables are in 2022. Confirming these will be the same dates in 2023 & beyond in terms of anticipated deliverable due dates?

Answer: The deliverable dates will be roughly the same in 2023 and beyond as the requirements will be performed under follow-on task order contracts.

RFP change: See revised Sample Task 1 PWS (Attachment 1).

60. In addition to the Pricing under Attachment 4 and Pricing for the First Task Order, are bidders also required to submit prices in the SF 1449 pages 3 thru 5 of 68 of the RFP?

Answer: No. See the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(b) and pricing attachment 4.

RFP change: none

61. In Instruction to Offerors (ii), Subfactor 2: is the Security+ certification required for each proposed personnel?

Answer: See the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Subfactor 2. Security+ certification is a requirement for personnel having a Privilege user role and being designated same (see answer to Question 5).

RFP change: none

62. The contract is 5 year of Base Period and 1 year of Option period. What does the quantity of 420 months represent under CLIN 0001 of SF 1449?

Answer: The quantity in CLIN 0001 enables the Government to issue multiple task orders during the period of performance. Offerors must submit the pricing spreadsheet per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

RFP change: none

63. Could the Govt. also provide a basis for the quantities required for each of the remaining CLINs?

Answer: The quantity in CLIN 0001 enables the Government to issue multiple task orders during the period of performance. Offerors must submit the pricing spreadsheet per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

RFP change: none

64. Please confirm whether the price of First Task Order will be included in the Total Evaluated Price in addition to the Total Price of Attachment 4.

Answer: No, see the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 3.5.

RFP change: none

65. To be on the same page with the requested levels within the Labor Category column, can the Government please provide associated job descriptions, minimum level of education/certification and years of experience required for each Labor Category?

Answer: Yes.

RFP change: See the tab added to revised Attachment 4.

66. Is the resource mix (hours by discipline and title) provided illustrative or is it the expectation of the government that the resource plan has already been determined?

Answer: Illustrative

RFP change: none

67. Are Labor Categories with the suffix “IV” more senior than Labor Categories with the suffix “I”?

For most Labor Categories, required hours do not reflect a multiplier of a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) (1820 or 1880 or 1920). Is it the Govt.’s intent for Contractors to hire part-timers to deliver the performance requirement of this contract?

Answer: Labor categories are illustrative. The Government is not hiring FTEs but rather contracting for work to be performed. Contracting personnel may propose a mix of full-time and part-time labor hours as they see fit to perform the requirements of the PWS. Categories with a suffix of “IV” are considered more senior than those with lower suffixes.

RFP change: See addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-2 and new tab in revised Attachment #4.

68. Travel CLIN values are plugged by the Govt. Are the contractors allowed to include indirect cost and fees while invoicing travel costs?

Answer: See PWS 7.0.

RFP change: none

69. Within this requirement is described targeting students age 16-24, and mentions outside lists. Data specifically on 16 & 17-yr olds is largely unavailable in the market. When the government references the outside list sources in this section, is the government indicating age 18-24? Meaning, is the information on 16 & 17-yr olds provided by other methods?

Answer: Age 16 refers to a student who is a high school junior. Offerors should provide recommendations on sources that include a mix of state DMVs and third party list vendors.

RFP change: none

70. For section 4.18, can the government confirm that the Project Management Plan must fit within the 40 page technical response page count?

Answer: Project Management Plan is not required with the proposal.

RFP change: See revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

71. In Section 4.19, can the government confirm that the Transition of Contract Services must fit within the 40 page technical response page count?

Answer: The transition plan in Section 4.19 is not required as part of the proposal, however, the contractor must acknowledge and ensure there is a transition in and out plan to ensure minimum disruption to vital Government business and adhere to that plan.

RFP change: See revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

72. In relation to securing high school student PII from commercial vendors, what is the client’s concern related to purchasing PII for less than 18-yr olds, as noted in the Youth Poll question? Direct PII on those under the age of 18 is largely unavailable, and commercially frowned upon. Instead, is the intent to have a resource of data which represents households where known high school students live, enabling marketing to the household, but not storing or soliciting the individual PII of those under 18?

Answer: The requirement is for directory level information lists for students that are high school juniors and above. See SORNs DHRA 04 & 05 (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/16/2019-22562/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records); (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/25/2018-23309/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records).

RFP change: none

73. Is the intent to secure the home address information of the individual, the transient college address, or both?

Answer: Both addresses.

RFP change: none

74. What is the government’s current technology landscape (existing tools and platforms)? Is there a future strategy?

Answer: Some of the current technology is discussed in Questions 23 and 34. Any others are proprietary to the incumbent. The Government relies on the technologies accredited by authorized agencies that meet criteria established by the Defense Human Resources Activity (DHRA) CIO in order to maintain the system at the security baseline it has been categorized. The future strategy, therefore, is to remain in lock step with the environments and applications that adhere to the cyber security standards and meet the system’s requirements for the functional and business use cases specified in the contract.

RFP change: none

75. What does the government’s current production landscape look like and what percentage of work is connected to digital assets vs. products vs. experience vs. content (video, audio, print, OOH, social?)

Answer: The Government’s current Influencer Campaign consists of TV spots and digital assets developed at the percentages noted in the answer to Question 21. Other products include Print – Futures Magazine (PWS 4.3.1, Sample Task #2); and Direct Marketing (postal mail, email to counselors, Selective Service System mailers).

RFP change: none

76. How is production (per discipline) planned, ideated and developed currently? What is the cadence?

Answer: This is a decision of the offeror. Cadence is defined under separate task order contracts for Direct Marketing, Interactive (Digital) Marketing, Media Placement, Account Service (Brand Strategy/Planning, Finance), and Public Relations.

RFP change: none

77. Does content currently straddle all brands and functions? i.e., where feasible, is content created centrally for use across all markets and business units, or are all areas treated and worked on independently?

Answer: Content is currently produced across all marketing disciplines by integrated agency account teams to ensure consistency in branding.

RFP change: none

78. We noted DVD and Blu-ray efforts were mentioned in the RFI, can the government provide what its current focus is for efforts in this space?

Answer: DVD and Blu-ray references are part of a list of the type of media which may be developed under the contract. At the present time, however, neither media is being produced or fulfilled.

RFP change: none

79. When providing existing assets for use in production does the government have a materials release system in place that outlines permission, guidance and use?

Answer: The intent of this question is not clear. Nevertheless, Government asset usage is governed by SAG-AFTRA talent residual contracts, records management requirements, and by requirements defined in PWS 4.9 and PWS 8.8.

RFP change: none

80. What is the current volume of assets the government needs stored (both physical and digital)?

Answer: With regard to storage of media assets, current volume consists of 135 digital creative assets (video).

RFP change: none

81. Does the government have guidelines for storage we can review prior to our submission for a more accurate approach to be written? Does the government have timelines for physical storage?

Answer: See 36 CFR Chapter 12 Part 1234 and https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/storage-standards-toolkit. Media asset storage is a requirement under an annual task order. Timelines will be in accordance with the OSD Records Disposition Schedule, https://www.esd.whs.mil/RIM/.

RFP change: See revised PWS paragraph 4.10.3 and 4.10.5.

82. What measures and metrics are currently in place for content and how is that reported and tracked? How frequently is that data used?

Answer: Media measures are defined at PWS 4.1. Google Analytics, Decibel and Adelaide have been used in the past. Frequency varies and is defined at the task order level.

RFP change: none

83. Will all systems need to be protected at the same Impact Level? (i.e. the opa.mil website referenced in 4.2.10 and the marketing database referenced in 4.9)

Answer: The OPA.mil website is Impact Level 2; the Recruiting and Survey Database is Impact Level 4.

RFP change: none

84. Will contractor be required to become a DoD authorized cybersecurity service provider or work to integrate platforms with existing authorized provider?

Answer: A contractor must use an existing DISA-authorized provider to meet the system’s cybersecurity criteria. Additionally, the contractor is required to maintain the accredited information systems at their current impact levels. See answer to Question 5 for cybersecurity requirements.

RFP change: none

85. Are there any specific issues with the current existing solution that need to be addressed by a new solution?

Answer: The existing solution is accredited and fully meets the Government’s current needs. However, cybersecurity requirements constantly evolve and may require future upgrades. No existing issue has been identified at this time that may require a new solution.

RFP change: none

86. Can the government provide estimates of the current DB size?

Answer: The database comprises a mix of roughly 65 large Windows and Linux development and production infrastructure that enables scripting, campaign management, data warehousing, web services, file ingestion, job scheduling, authentication/authorization, and source code repository.

RFP change: none

87. Can the government provide estimates on the volumes by Source Feeds?

Answer: Selective Service System File: 500K records annually; High School Master File: 5M records annually; Joint Leads: 20K SSS Responders + 12K web leads annually; College File: 6.5M records annually; Prior Military Service Address File: 61K records per release; DMDC Suppression File 845K records per release; Permanent Suppression File: 577K records; Youth Poll Frame: 36.6M records

RFP change: none

88. Do JAMRS resources need Campaign or Reporting access? If so, please provide the number of user licenses for each.

Answer: It is not clear to the Government what information this question seeks. Nevertheless, there are no user licenses for the recruiting and survey database.

RFP change: none

89. Can the government provide an estimated number of campaigns with volumes in the following channels?

Answer:

RFP change: none

90. Can the government confirm the sites included are www.myfuture.com, www.medicineinthemilitary.com, cybermission.tech, www.todaysmilitary.com and opa.mil?

Answer: Websites include todaysmilitary.com. myfuture.com, medicineandthemilitary.com; cybermission.tech; OPA.mil; jamrs.defense.mil; DPAC.defense.mil.

RFP change: none

91. Can the government confirm that is it correct to assume OPA.mil houses program information outside of JAMRS?

Answer: Correct, OPA.mil includes JAMRS program information plus information from other DPAC divisions.

RFP change: none

92. Can the government confirm that information will be accessed by the awarded contractor, but not entirely housed/hosted by the contractor?

Answer: Correct, information will be hosted/housed at Government sites and in the AWS GovCloud.

RFP change: none

93. Can the government confirm ownership of their Google Analytics accounts?

Answer: Currently, the contractor maintains a Google Analytics account.

RFP change: none

94. Will the awarded contractor be responsible for all opa.mil hosting? If not, please explain how the RMF certification and compliance is managed.

Answer: OPA.MIL is hosted in GSA’s Cloud.Gov PaaS (L2) environment. The Government is responsible for funding the platform’s requirements outside of this contract. The RMF certification and compliance of OPA.MIL are managed through this contract where contractor is responsible for the security controls that are the responsibility of the system/application owner.

RFP change: none

95. Is it correct to assume the contractor must use GPO for publication printing and distribution?

Answer: Publication printing and distribution is managed by the contractor and does not have to use GPO.

RFP change: none

96. What certifying authority is acceptable to the govt. for the RMF certification (assuming NIST)? Is the authority a govt. entity or vendor-supplied?

Answer: NIST is the RMF certification. The Government Authorizing Official is the Director, Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC).

RFP change: none

97. As part of the transition plan, does the government intend to allow the awarded contractor to work through their ATO (for opa.mil, etc)?

Answer: The Government expects a Business Case Analysis (BCA) document in order to consider any transition of the system’s accreditation boundary.

RFP change: none

98. Will the government allow for the existing to ATO stand in place while being maintained by the new vendor until a new ATO can be obtained?

Answer: The contractor will inherit the maintenance requirements for the existing Government-owned, contractor-operated cloud system. The contractor must be able to maintain the current ATO and security status of the systems while it drafts any additional documentation in support of a proposed new environment to host and maintain the systems’ security status. In order to maintain the ATO, the Government must validate the contractor has met the DoD cybersecurity requirement for system access specified in the DoDI 8570.01-m.

RFP change: none

99. Can the government please expand on the timeline and considerations for this specific ask of drafting an SSP and actually securing an ATO (to then maintain)? This is a lengthy process that requires direct access to the systems provisioned that cannot be completed by contract award.

Answer: The contractor must be able to maintain the current security status of the systems while it drafts any additional documentation in support of a proposed new environment to host and maintain the systems’ security status. It is not expected from a contractor to obtain direct access to a system until the contract award has been approved, and the Government validates the contractor has met DoD cybersecurity requirement for system access specified in the DoDI 8570.01-m.

RFP change: none

100. Can the government please clarify expectations as it relates to section 8 - SSP, ATO, RMF (prior to award)?

Answer: See the answer to Questions 40, 41, 42 and 99

101. Can the government clarify the quantities listed in the CLIN table? For example, CLIN 0001 lists a quantity of 420 and the unit type is listed as “Months.” If CLIN 0001’s period of performance is 5 years, shouldn’t the quantity be listed as 60?

Answer: See answers to Questions 62 and 63.

102. Section 8.26.2 states that a System Security Plan (SSP) shall be submitted to the Government as part of the proposal. Please confirm whether offerors must submit the SSP with their proposals or may we submit this upon contract award? If the SSP must be submitted with the proposal, in which volume should this be included?

Answer: Prior to implementing a new solution that has no ATO.

RFP change: See revised PWS 8.26.2.

103. Are proposed subcontractors required to provide reps and certs (FAR 52.212-3), an OCI Mitigation Plan (if applicable), and compensation details (FAR 52.222-46)?

Answer: The prime contractor is responsible for handling its subcontractors.

RFP change: none

104. With regards to Subfactor 4, please confirm that offerors should only submit pricing for Sample Task 2 and that no pricing is required for Sample Task 1.

Answer: Confirmed. Follow the instruction in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

RFP change: none

105. The instructions reference pricing for Sample Task 2 under the section for Volume 2: Technical. Please confirm this is correct or should Sample Task 2 pricing be included in Volume 1: Business and Price.

Answer: Confirmed. Follow the instructions in the addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

RFP change: none

106. Please confirm that Sample Tasks 1 and 2 are for evaluation purposes only and will not be awarded.

Answer: Confirmed. Sample Tasks 1 and 2 are for evaluation purposes only; they will not be awarded contracts.

RFP change: none

107. Does the government intend to award the First Task Order as part of the overall contract award?

Answer: Yes. The First Task Order will be first task order issued with award of the acquisition base contract.

RFP change: none

108. Please confirm that offerors should only propose unit prices for the provided labor categories and ODEs (ie, offerors should NOT propose additional labor categories or ODEs and/or adjust the hours or quantities listed in the spreadsheet.)

Answer: Confirmed, however offerors can insert a different title for the labor category next to the one that is there should it a call a category something different. ODE’s needed for task orders that are not included on the pricing sheet will be handled under the ODE CLINs using the instruction within CLINs X002. Additionally, the Government is aware that the labor category list on the pricing sheet is not inclusive of all specialty labor categories needed for all task orders (e.g. Diversity & Inclusion Marketing Expertise). In the event one of these new labor types is needed, it will be priced and evaluated at the task order level under the ODE CLINs X002.

RFP change: none

109. Please provide offerors a two week extension in order to properly review and apply changes based on the questions and answers and any subsequent amendments to the RFP.

Answer: Extension will be in accordance with the amendment

RFP change: See the amendment

110. What specific marketing technology is supporting the direct marketing program today? Can the government confirm the technology supporting the direct marketing program will be accessed by the awarded contractor, but not entirely housed/hosted by the contractor?

Answer: The marketing technology supporting the direct marketing program is a Government-owned and Contractor-maintained recruiting database information system. The contractor will access the information system, but the system will reside (be hosted in) the AWS GovCloud.

RFP change: none

111. Re: Attachment 4, Pricing, is it expected that every ODE on the pricing sheet will be necessary for completion of each task, or is it left to the discretion of the bidder which to utilize and price?

Answer: It is not expected each ODE will be on every task order. It will be driven by the task order PWS.

RFP change: none

112. Re: 4.1, which KPIs are currently tracked?

Answer: Previously, KPIs have included delivery percentage, response rates, email open rates, target audience list coverage, creative production quality, on-time delivery, etc.

RFP change: none

113. Re: 4.1, what is the target experience end-to-end? What systems do the target’s data flow through?

Answer: Target experience varies by Direct Marketing campaigns that will be detailed in task orders. Any data flow will be through secure systems.

RFP change: none

114. Re: 4.1, Is there a seasonality when direct marketing is most effective for your target?

Answer: Yes, direct marketing efforts focused on educators tend to be most effective at the beginning of the school year.

RFP change: none

115. Section 4.1.1.3: is the government able to provide additional detail on the nature/format of data requirements to the associated Services?

Answer: Files are exchanged through the DISA Cloud Access Point to Military Services that have NIST accredited information systems. The nature of the data requirements is described in PWS 4.9 and the format is a flat file.

RFP change: none

116. Re: 4.1, To what extent, if any, do DEI&A considerations impact any list sourcing and/or reporting?

Answer: Currently, list sourcing is broad and generic. However, future needs may include additional niche requirements.

RFP change: none

117. Re: 4.2.1, Is a replatform or redesign of the website(s) planned?

Answer: No re-platforming or redesign is planned for the Government’s websites.

RFP change: none

118. Re: 4.2.1, which platform is the current website(s) running on?

Answer: The Government’s websites are hosted by Amazon Web Services, AWS GovCloud, and the Defense Media Activity (DMA) Web Enterprise Business (WEB.mil).

RFP change: none

119. Re: 4.2.1, do the website(s) send information to any databases?

Answer: Yes. As part of the database boundary, todaysmilitary.com sends Requests For Information (RFIs) to an authorized and secure data repository.

RFP change: none

120. Re: 4.2.1, does the website(s) hold PII?

Answer: Yes, in the RFI mentioned in the answer to Question 119.

RFP change: none

121. Re: 4.2.1, how is the website(s) currently classified from a FedRAMP perspective? Is it an IL2?

Answer: OPA.mil is hosted on AWS GovCloud at IL2. JAMRS.defense.gov and DPAC.defense.gov are hosted on DMA’s WEB.mil. All .com recruiting websites including cybermission.tech are commercially hosted on AWS. As they are unclassified recruiting information websites for the public, there is currently no directive to migrate these sites. The RFI on todaysmilitary.com is IL4.

RFP change: none

122. Re: 4.2.1, what is the current website(s) SLA?

Answer: This is dependent on offerors.

RFP change: none

123. Re: 4.2.1, is there a directive to move the current website(s) to the cloud?

Answer. OPA.mil is hosted on AWS GovCloud. JAMRS.defense.gov and DPAC.defense.gov are hosted on DMA Web.mil. All .com recruiting websites including cybermission.tech are hosted on AWS. As they are unclassified recruiting information websites for the public, there is currently no directive to migrate these sites.

RFP change: none

124. Re: 4.2.1, how do development teams access the site? What type of clearance is required to access the site?

Answer: PWS 4.2.1 references multiple websites. Access to OPA.mil requires Privilege User credentialing (see answer to Question 5 and Section 8 of the PWS). JAMRS.defense.gov requires completion of WEB.mil user training for maintenance access to the site.

RFP change: none

125. Re: 4.2.1, who is the primary audience of the website?

Answer: Primary website audiences are: TodaysMilitary.com – Youth ages 17-24 and Adults 35-64; MyFuture.com – Youth ages 17-24 and educators; MedicineandtheMilitary.com – Youth ages 17-24 interested in medical careers; Pre-med students, residents, and fully qualified physicians, OPA.mil – DoD Military and Civilians; JAMRS.defense.gov – The American public.

RFP change: none

126. Re: 4.2.1, does the website have a backend analytics system?

Answer: TodaysMilitary.com, MyFuture.com, and MedicineandtheMilitary.com have analytics tools which are listed in the answer to Question 23. OPA.mil uses Google Analytics.

RFP change: none

127. Re: 4.2.1, can the government confirm how many domains are included in RFP? And what the domains are?

Answer: See Answer to Question 90.

RFP change: none

128. Re: 4.2.2, what email system(s) and platforms are the government currently using?

Answer: Historically, the Government has used Outlook and the contractor’s proprietary email system.

RFP change: none

129. Re: 4.2.2, how many email records does the government have in the current customer database?

Answer: With regard to the 4.2.2 OPA.mil requirement, there are currently 840 stakeholder email addresses registered with the site.

RFP change: none

130. Re: 4.2.2, which tools is the government using to support and optimize email deliverability?

Answer: This is a decision of the offeror.

RFP change: none

131. Re: 4.2.2, what levels of dynamic / modular content are you using in your email program? How personalized is the messaging?

Answer: This is recommended by the contractor and approved by the Government at the task order level. OPA.mil emails are generalized to a stakeholder audience of Military service members and Government civilian employees.

RFP change: none

132. Re: 4.2.3, is there a need for net new asset acquisition or production for new content?

Answer: Production of new assets will be included in future task orders under the contract as budgets permit.

RFP change: none

133. Re: 4.2.3, approximately how many content updates are made to the website each month?

Answer: PWS 4.2.3 references multiple websites. Updates vary and are made to the sites whenever information becomes outdated, links become broken/changed, or whenever new information/content has been received from the DoD or the Services. This can be as few as two per website per month and as many as 12 per website per month.

RFP change: none

134. Re: 4.2.4, is there a current tagging infrastructure in place?

Answer: Yes.

RFP change: none

135. Re: 4.2.6, what types of content have had the most effective performance based on KPIs and should be considered foundational to future efforts - placement types, messaging strategies and ad formats.

Answer: Adult Influencer campaigns have had good success. A 2022 EFFIE Award for Sustained Success is reflective of this. See answer to Question 21 for information on placement types.

RFP change: none

136. Re: 4.2.7, what is the volume of creative output and rotation in digital marketing on a typical monthly and quarterly basis? Are creative assets developed well in advance or are assets developed on an ad hoc basis per performance? Please provide as much context as possible to inform ingoing assumptions related to process.

Answer: Digital creative assets are developed on an ad hoc basis just ahead of campaign flights. Since 2018, campaign flights have aired once or twice per year, usually 6 to 10 weeks each in duration based on the approved media plan.

RFP change: none

137. Re: 4.3.1, Can the government clarify if the PR communication channels referenced in this task are in addition to those outlined in sections 4.3.7, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1?

Answer: The 4.3.1 requirements are primarily for communicating DPAC and OPA program information and are in addition to the 4.3.7, 4.3.8 and 4.3.8.1 requirements which are primarily for communicating JAMRS information.

RFP change: none

138. Re: 4.3.1, is the government currently using influencers, or is it open to that as a potential channel?

Answer: The Government is not currently using social media influencers, but would be open to consideration of influencers as a potential PR channel.

RFP change: none

139. Re: 4.3.2, can the government provide an estimate for the number of media queries per contract year based on past experience?

Answer: Per contract year, there could be 3 to 6 media queries via DoD public affairs.

RFP change: none

140. Re: 4.3.2, can the government explain the current clearance process for media inquiries?

Answer: DoD public affairs coordinates media queries for the program. As such, DoD public affairs is responsible for any clearance process.

RFP change: none

141. Re: 4.3.3, can the government provide an estimate for the number of press releases, public affairs guidance, press kits, and other media materials per contract year?

Answer: Public affairs guidance is typically updated twice per year. Other press/media materials may be developed once per year.

RFP change: none

142. Re: 4.3.4, When the last iteration of the existing crisis plan was developed?

Answer: The current crisis plan was developed under the current contract.

RFP change: none

143. Re: 4.3.4, how frequently does the government anticipate updates?

Answer: An update may be required once during the contract’s period of performance.

RFP change: none

144. Re: 4.3.4, is the contractor required to support plan execution, or does the government manage crisis communications in-house?

Answer: The Government manages all crisis communications.