QandA_RAINFIRE.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted Sep 26, 2018

Attached to: RAINFIRE Analytic Support
Solicitation number: HB0001-18-R-0022
Issued by: Department of Defense Cyber Command

About this file

From the source

RFP Questions and Answers

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
RAINFIRE_SSP_v3_3_October_2018.pdf	PDF	Oct 11, 2018
RAINFIRE_Mod_3.pdf	PDF	Oct 11, 2018
RAINFIRE_RFP_Amendment_2.pdf	PDF	Sep 26, 2018
Rainfire_BOA_Guide_v2.0_21September_2018.docx	DOCX document	Sep 26, 2018
RAINFIRE_SOW_v2_18_Sep_2018.docx	DOCX document	Sep 26, 2018
RAINFIRE_SSP_v2_25_September_2018.docx	DOCX document	Sep 26, 2018
RAINFIRE_RFP_Amendment_1.pdf	PDF	Sep 26, 2018
DCAF_Reference_Architecture.pptx	PPTX presentation	Sep 26, 2018
RAINFIRE_SSP_v1.0_4_September_2018.pdf	PDF	Sep 4, 2018
HB0001-18-R-0022.pdf	PDF	Sep 4, 2018
Rainfire_BOA_Guide_v1.4_18Jul18.pdf	PDF	Sep 4, 2018
RAINFIRE_SOW_v1_23_July_2018.pdf	PDF	Sep 4, 2018

Show all 12

On GovTribe

Work with this file

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

Try for free Login

Text version

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

25 Sep 2018

RAINFIRE, Questions for Request for Proposal
	Question	Response	Affected Documents
1	Section 5 – Volume Structure makes no mention of a Cost Volume. However, Section 3 – Source Selection Team. Subparagraph B.3.a says that pursuant to FAR 15.404-1, the PCO will be responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of price. Further, Section 5, subparagraph 4 states “The price volume spreadsheet files may exceed 5MB.” Please confirm that no price volume or pricing information is required with the proposal submittal.	Cost will not be evaluated in this solicitation, but only on subsequent orders.	The Source Selection Plan, Section 5 and Section 3 have been edited to remove references to cost. The updates are in version 1.1 of the Source Selection Plan.
2	The SSP, Section 5, subparagraph 4 states “PDF files will only be accepted on a limited basis (with prior approval from the PCO).” We assume that the completed copy of the SF-33, and any subsequent SF-30s, and any other page from the RFP that requires completion are approved for submittal in pdf format. Is this correct? Also, in what volume should these documents be provided – as separate standalone documents or as part of a specific volume? And if part of a volume, please confirm that their inclusion is not included in the page count.	SF33s are authorized for submission via PDF. These documents should be included as part of the Volume II but will not count against the page limits.	The Source Selection Plan, Section 5 has been edited to include the additional instructions. The updates are in version 1.1 of the Source Selection Plan, to include an updated Section 5, Table 1.
3	The RFP’s SF-33, Block 9 shows a due date of 3 October 2018 at 3:00 PM. The Source Selection Plan (SSP), Section 6, First Paragraph, shows a due date of 4 October 2018. Please confirm the correct delivery date and time.	The SSP contained a typographical error.	The Source Selection Plan, Section 6, has been updated to reflect the due date.
4	The SSP and the RFP have conflicting instructions for proposal delivery. The SSP proposal delivery instructions (Section 5, Item 3, First Paragraph) state proposals are to be delivered in accordance with the delivery instructions noted in the RFP. In the RFP, SF 33, Block 9 indicates one sealed original and one copy are to be delivered to the address listed in Block 7. In the SSP (Section 5, Item 3, Second Paragraph) it states proposals shall be delivered to the PCO, CS, and the proposal alias listed in Section 5, Part 2, “Points of Contact”, where only e-mail addresses are listed. Further, in the SSP volume structure (Section 5, Item 5, First Paragraph) it states that it is anticipated that the offeror shall submit unclassified soft copies of its proposal. Please clarify that all proposals should be submitted in soft copy via e-mail to the three addresses listed in the SSP Section 5, Subparagraph 2.	The contract writing system did not allow us to edit the SF33. Please follow the instructions in the Source Selection Plan for delivery instructions, which is soft copy to the three email addresses listed in Section 5, Subparagraph 2.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
5	If a company does not have any "Prime Contracts" they can use as a past performance, can we use our past performance as a subcontractor to fulfill this requirement?	No.	Section 4, Table 1 has been updated to indicate that an offeror will receive an acceptable rating if there are no current past performances to evaluate.
6	If past performance as a subcontract will not be accepted, can we use the past performance of a subcontractor to meet this requirement?	No.	Section 4, Table 1 has been updated to indicate that an offeror will receive an acceptable rating if there are no current past performances to evaluate.
7	Do the Past Performance contracts have to include any contracts related to the work contained in the Optional Pools that we decide to include in our proposal?	That is at the discretion of the Offeror. No pre-defined standards are set.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
8	Is it a requirement to have SCIF space identified at time of proposal submission or can SCIF space be proposed for each call that require us to have SCIF space to perform the task?	A SCIF can be proposed for each Call. The SCIF may be owned, leased or rented by the company.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
9	Question: Does Times New Roman font, single-spaced, using 12-point text apply to document Headers and Footers as well?	No.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
10	Per the Source Selection Plan (SSP) the Government will be making Task Order (TO) awards per Lowest Price (LP) evaluation. However, the BOA includes very niche requirements per statements that follow. Especially for the non-standard analytics, but even the standard analytics, not all analytics are created equally. Within 4.5.1 of the SOW for Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning Analytics, the paragraph of the SOW covers a very broad range of capabilities. A contractor may have expertise in unsupervised algorithms and another contractor may have expertise in supervised algorithms, yet another contract may be broadly capable in both areas, but specialized in neither of them. How will the Government obtain the highest quality capabilities from an offensive and defensive perspective when there is not an evaluation of technical merit and/or approach at the TO level. Also, companies change over time, are acquired, staff turns over, etc. such that the original performer at the time of the BOA award is not the same entity and performer by the time TOs are bid. We would request the Government consider doing best value and technically acceptable evaluations for the TO awards. Especially on TOs that are mission critical for offensive and defensive capabilities and TOs that require innovation and not the status quo that is obtained under LPTA and LP TO selections.	The Government will reserve the right to leverage best value trade off source selection for future calls and will include such language in the Ordering Guide.	The Ordering Guide, section 2.5, was updated to reflect the ability to use best value for non-standard analytics. The Ordering Guide was released as part of the RFP Amendment and is reflected as version 1.1 dated 10 September 2018.
11	The Government anticipates making between 2 and 10 awards for the BOA. If an existing BOA holder becomes in-eligible for future calls, per the above statement will the Government establish a process to on-ramp new vendors to the BOA? Due to the LP nature of the TOs, vendors are going to be forced to bid to the lowest possible dollar and will be delivering capabilities that barely meet the technical requirements. The likelihood of performance failure is significant due to the "race to the bottom" that LP and even LPTA creates. There is significant potential that within the period of the BOA there will be many times where there is only one or there are no BOA holders eligible for award due to performance failure. Will the Government consider adding an option for Best Value trade-offs, so that BOA holders that utilize subject matter experts for their work efforts are able to obtain fair work under the BOA? By adding a Best Value component to the BOA there will not need to be an on-ramp period as the high performing and innovative companies will compete for the Best Value efforts while the low performers and non-innovative, status quo companies will compete for the Lowest Price (LP) work efforts	The Government will reserve the right to leverage best value trade off source selection for future calls and will include such language in the Ordering Guide.	The Ordering Guide, section 2.5, was updated to reflect the ability to use best value for non-standard analytics. The Ordering Guide was released as part of the RFP Amendment and is reflected as version 1.1 dated 10 September 2018.
12	We understands the Government post GFY17 is recommended to avoid LPTA for acquisitions of “information technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering and technical assistance services, advanced electronic testing, audit or audit readiness services, or other knowledge-based professional services;..." Will the Government consider a Best Value based acquisition instead of LPTA? In addition, will the Government consider a single award to the most qualified bidder based upon the requirements? Reading the RAINFIRE requirements this looks to be a cybersecurity requirement requiring IT Services and knowledge-based professional services.	Thank you for the recommendation. Input/feedback was solicited from Industry during the Request for Information phase. The information was then used to help inform an acquisition strategy for RAINFIRE. Based on the technical requirements and feedback received, the Government has made the determination to utilize a multi-award contract that leverages LP awards for defined analytics. Our first call will be issued following award. A comment period will be provided to ensure the documentation is clearly defined enough to propose at a fixed price.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
13	What funding profile does the Government anticipate for the RAINFIRE BOA?	The anticipated yearly expenditures are $5M, however, funding is subject to change.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
14	With regard to the Task Order proposal process, how much advance notice does the Government anticipate that the contractor will have before issuing a request for proposal for a task?	Timelines cannot be predicted at this time. However, the ordering guide does allow for a question and answer period to ensure all eligible offerors understand the requirement prior to submission of proposal.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
15	The BDP uses technologies that are equivalent to big data environment in non-DOD Federal Organizations such as DHS and IC. We respectfully request USCYBERCOM to modify this requirement and accept other environments similar to the DOD BDP.	The nuances of the DoD's big data plaform are significant enough to warrant experience with DoD's BDP. Similar big data environments do not provide the functionality that USCYBERCOM requires with RAINFIRE.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
16	How will the Government determine Facility Clearance Status for offerors?	Section 4.0 indicates the Government will verify the FCL. This will be done through the USCC Security Office.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
17	Does the Government have a preferred method for past performance submissions?	Per section 5 of the SSP, under FACTOR 2, the Offeror is only required to provide the points of contact and summary information. The Government will issue questionnaires to the points of contacts to get required past performance information.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
18	Is volume 2 a total of two (2) pages or two (2) pages per past performance submission.	It is a total of two (2) pages to summarize the three past performance efforts referenced and provide the appropriate POC information.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
19	The SOW requires SCIF and unclassified development and test environments. Does the offeror need to provide any documentation with their BOA proposal (like a letter of intent) on SCIF availability?	No, that is not required.	The SOW has been updated to identify that Call responses shall include how the offeror will address the SCIF requirements identified, if applicable.
20	Will the contractor have direct access to the analytic running in production to troubleshoot/validate bug reports?	No. Once the analytic has been developed, delivered, tested and deployed to production the government will be handling all troubleshooting and bug validation. If, during the 6-month post-deployment period there are bugs or issues that the government cannot resolve, the contractor will be consulted, but will not have access to the production environment. If an issue arises that can not be resolved by the Government, the contractor will be asked to resolve the bug/issue in their development environment.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
21	Since Evaluation Factors are based on Technically Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, to ensure "demonstratable" capabilities across Factors and Subfactors, and to allow the Government to make the best decision in awarding a BOA, would the Government consider changing the Past Performance requirement from three (3) prime contracts to five (5) prime contracts with 1 of the 5 being direct with USCYBERCOM?	No, seeing as the command has only issued 22 contracts, that would severely limit the pool of competition.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
22	After review of the FAR, "lot drawing" was only identified in FAR Part 14 - Sealed Bids, 14.408-6 Equal Low Bids. Since the BOA requires no cost/pricing data associated with FAR Part 14 and to prevent potential protests, would the Government identify which part of the FAR allows for "lot drawings".	It is not prohibited by the FAR. In accordance with FAR 1.102-4(e), "The FAR outlines procurement policies and procedures that are used by members of the Acquisition Team. If a policy or procedure, or a particular strategy or practice, is in the best interest of the Government and is not specifically addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, Government members of the Team should not assume it is prohibited. Rather, absence of direction should be interpreted as permitting the Team to innovate and use sound business judgment that is otherwise consistent with law and within the limits of their authority. Contracting officers should take the lead in encouraging business process innovations and ensuring that business decisions are sound"	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
23	Section 5 of the Statement of Work states "The Contractor Shall provide deliverables in accordance with the calls associated with the contract. The potential data item descriptions associated with the contract are defined in the attachment to the contract." Is there an attachment associated with the deliverables to which we can refer?	The orders are intended to be Fixed Price, as such the deliverables will be outlined in each call rather than establishing a formal Contract Data Requirements List.	Section 5 of the SOW was updated to remove reference to the CDRLS.
24	For Factor 2 - Past Performance, says "The offeror shall provide three (3) points of contact for contracts in which they performed work of similar scope, as the prime contractors…". Could the Government clarify whether it is looking for three points of contact for EACH contract, or points of contact as specified later in the paragraph for each of the three contracts?	The offeror shall provide one point of contact for three (3) distinct contracts that they performed as a prime on.	The SSP was updated to indicate: "The Offeror shall provide one (1) point of contract for each of the three (3) contracts in which they performed work of similar scope, as the prime contractors, to enable the Government to solicit information on past performance."
25	For Section 5 of the SSP, "FACTOR TWO - PAST PERFORMANCE", the information requested in Volume II includes "…name of the Program Manager." Does this refer to the name of the Government Program Manager or the Prime Contractor Program Manager?	The Government Program Manager.	The SSP Section 5 was updated to indicate "Government Program Manager".
26	How will the Government ensure this acquisition will result in an adequate number of qualified companies necessary to compete for and perform all future analytics and security requirements? It is recommended that the Government provide more descriptive set of parameters to meet the Acceptable rating during the BOA phase to include acceptable SCIF parameters (square footage, SCI communications, lab environment).	The acquisition strategy has been designed to promote competition in accordance with FAR 1.102-2(a)(5) as part of the acquisition process. The Government has selected multiple awards, with clear descriptions of the performance areas. Not all analytics will require SCIF space, so that should not eliminate an offeror from competing.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
27	The Statement of Work, Section 6.1 indicates that the effort shall be "five years". Based on the most recent DoD memorandum dated 17 Jan 2017, would the Government consider changing the "within scope" to six years?	Not at this time.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
28	Would the Government please explain the intended differences between the SOW Requirements of 4.2.6 and 4.3? Is it possible to combine these requirements?	The Requirement in SOW 4.2.6 is a required maintenance period of 180-days post-delivery for any analytic developed under a RAINFIRE order. The Requirement in SOW 4.3 refers to a future separate order, or orders, that will be awarded for the long-term sustainment or maintenance of specific analytics and/or groups of analytics beyond that 180-day period.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
29	Would the Government please explain the intended differences between the Training requirements in SOW section 4.2.5 and section 7.0?	Training as described in SOW Section 4.2.5 refers to training the the vendor would be requried to provide to the government on use of the developmed analytic. Training as described in SOW Section 7.0 refers to the training, knowledge, skills and expertise that the vendor's resources should possess in order to successfully perform the work and deliver the required analytic(s).	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
30	Would the Government consider allowing the Non-Standard Analytics to be its own volume to allow for a common approach across all areas or could we cross reference between Factor One and each of the Non-Standard Analytics.	Not at this time, the Government increased the page count per other requests.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
31	The Government is using one vehicle to achieve a variety of types of work. Some of the work is well suited for FFP completion execution (e.g. the implementation of a well-defined algorithm), while other work is more investigative in nature (e.g. machine learning applied to traffic analysis). Would the Government consider a hybrid approach, which would separate the core development work (e.g. developing the analytic method), which could be reasonably bid FFP, and award a corresponding LOE optimization task to ensure the Government is in the best possible position to determine when the optimization is completed?	Based on recommendations from Industry, the Government has included the option to leverage best value source selection. If best value source selection is used, this shall address the optimization concern.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
32	If the Government, while during the course of the drawing lots as described in the current RFP documents and the low draws result in a list of awardees who do not support adequate coverage or competition across all non-standard analytic pools, then what would the Governments course of action be?	The SSP language has been revised to give preference to those offerors who respond to all non-standard analytics, and are evalauted as acceptable, to ensure adequate coverage for all tasking.	The SSP section 5, paragraph 3 has been updated to reflect a revised lot drawing method.
33	The solicitation SOW and Source Selection Plan that present these multifaceted requirement sets are 27 pages in length. However, the proposal response is limited to a maximum of 29 pages. It is recommended to increase the proposal maximum page count to 40 pages.	This is a valid ask, the Government will agree to revise the number of pages to be delivered to 35 pages.	The SSP, Section 5, Table 1 has been updated.
34	How will the two page cover letter be evaluated?	It will not. It is merely for informational purposes. This section will include your FCL information as the initial eligibility check before we begin review.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
35	According to the SSP, identifying discriminating factors is part of the SSEB responsibilities. Since the evaluation criteria is either Acceptable or Unacceptable, do discriminating factors provide an offeror additional entries into lot drawing?	This was included in error. Reference has been removed.	The SSP was updated to reflect removal of discriminating factors as part of the SSEB responsibilities.
36	According to the SSP, the PCO will determine which offeror is in the competitive range. How will this be determined?	The PCO shall review the findings of the SSEB and review the proposals. The competitive range determination will be based on which offerors receive an Acceptable rating in all FACTORS and would be eligible for the lot drawing.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
37	Where shall the Top Secret Facility Clearance be identified in the proposal to be eligible for proposal review?	The CAGE code shall be provided in Executive Summary or Cover Page of the Proposal.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
38	The Government states they may reject proposals if cost and schedule is deemed unrealistic. Does this apply to future orders only and how does this apply at the BOA level.	This was intended language for future orders.	The SSP language regarding unrealistic pricing or schedule has been moved to the Ordering Guide.
39	How will the Government evaluate a Past Performance contract if the Government Point of Contact deems the response to the questions in the Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to be classified.	The RAINFIRE Source Selection Team members for Past Performance can accept classified responses from the Government POCs identified for past performance efforts.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
40	What will the turn around time be for the PPQ response?	Approximately two weeks.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
41	How is the selection process in Section 5.1 of the SSP altered if there are less than five (5) small businesses deemed acceptable?	The SSP language has been revised to address the lot drawing methodology.	The SSP section 5, paragraph 3 has been updated to reflect a revised lot drawing method.
42	Please confirm the Table of Contents is not included in the page count.	The table of contents is not included in the page count.	Section 5 already included this exclusion: "(U) Each volume shall contain a table of contents for the respective volume. The table of contents shall correspond to the order in which the information was requested within the Source Selection Plan. Each volume should also contain a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms with an explanation of each. This shall not be included in the page count."
43	Is it acceptable for the offeror to provide the PPQ to the POC as long as the POC submits the PPQ directly to the Government? This approach will eliminate the burden of contracting/explaining to the POC what is needed from the Government. If possible, please provide the PPQ.	Thank you for the recommendation. At this time, the Government Source Selection Team will maintain responsibility for contacting the POCs provided.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
44	Within the Ordering Guide, Section 2.1 has indicated that the small business set asides will be identified in the Identification of Requirements. How will small business set asides be determined?	Through understanding of the requirements and size of order.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
45	If the Order is not set aside for small businesses, can a small business compete for the full and open Orders?	Yes.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
46	52.215-22 are not required for FFP contracts per FAR 15-408(n)(2)(I)(B)(2). Will the CO remove the clause.	Yes.	The Amendment 1 to the RFP reflects the removal.
47	Will excessive pass through be calculated on the BOA level of for each individual order?	This clause was removed.	The Amendment 1 to the RFP reflects the removal.
48	52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees requires a submittal of a Total Compensation Plan. Is this plan required with submittal of the BOA proposal, or only for future order proposals after award.	Future orders, post BOA Award.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
49	52.244-2 Subcontracts contains a fill in section to identify subcontractors that will be subject to contracting officer consent prior to subcontract award. Will the CO review subcontractors for this BOA proposal. Is the paragraph (j) fill-in required for the BOA proposal or only for future orders after BOA award.	Future orders, post BOA Award.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
50	To ensure "demonstrate technical ability", would the Government consider requiring Past Performance, as a prime contractor, for each of the 5 Optional Pools? These Optional Pool Past Performances will follow the same guidelines set forth in the solicitation.	The Government requires and will consider Past Performance for any of the Optional Pools. However, the Government will not require the vendor demonstrate technical ability across all Optional Pools in order to be deemed technically acceptable.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
51	Per the Statement of Work, the contractor shall provide continued maintenance and sustainment of delivered analytics for a period of 180 days following the transition and acceptance of each analytic. Is this support expected to be limited to daytime hours or if support should be provided on an on-call basis or a 24x7 basis?	During the 180-day period, the maintenance and sustainment would be limited to USCC core hours.	The SOW section 4.2.6 has been updated to reflect support during USCC core hours (currently 0800-1500) and Section 4.3 of the SOW has been updated to include on-call support during core hours for clarity.
52	"Portions of the successful offerors proposal may be incorporated into the contract as an attachment in the award document, therefore the proposal shall be written in binding terms as a means to evaluate." Would the Government please clarify what it considers "binding terms" in the above statement?	Binding terms may be the "Contractor shall" or "Guarantee".	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
53	The Government indicates a lottery if all other elements are considered equal. Does this imply that the subfactors will be scored individually, or is Factor 1 Acceptable/Unacceptable in its entirety? If one of the subfactors is scored "unacceptable", does that automatically make its parent factor "unacceptable".	Sub-factors will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Unacceptable rating is received at the subfactor level, it will make the parent factor unacceptable. If the offeror is determined to be unacceptable at any factor level, they will be excluded from the competitive range and potential lottery.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
54	If the Government is required to explain why the requirement cannot be set aside for small business participants, does this imply small businesses will be given first preference?	No. The Government will evaluate the size of the Order and the small business numbers for the Command when making a determination to set aside.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
55	The Government will provide sample data, but the heart of the learning system is that their analytic performance can only be evaluated with real production data. Will the Government allow the offeror to test actual learning performance on production data?	No. The Government will be performing all test on production data.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
56	The Government seeks demonstrated ability to develop on the DCAF. Is this related to the open data platform? Can the Government provide the DCAF architecture in a bidders library?	The DCAF architecture is for the DoD. Per Question 15, the Government is looking for demonstrated experience with the architecture.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
57	What number of task orders, along with corresponding size, scope, and value, does the Government anticipate on an average annual basis?	The initial spend plan is $5M for FY19. Future funding is subject to congressional budgets and internal prioritizations. At this time the Government is unable to predict the number of orders.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
58	Would USCC confirm that the submission will be made electronically only, addressed to uscybercom_proposals@cybercom.mil?	Section 5, Part 3, Paragraph 2 of the SSP indicates the proposal shall be submitted electronically to the PCO, CS, and the alias noted in your question.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
59	Would USCC confirm that no price/rate information, Representations and Certifications, or Past Performance Questionnaires are required in the October 3 submission?	Representation and Certifications need to be up-to-date in SAM in accordance with 52.204-17. No pricing is required nor completed PPQs.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
60	It is requested that proposals be submitted in PDF format to ensure that when printed, documents will be consistent with the electronic file submissions.	Thank you for the request, at this time, the Government prefers executable files to save on size of files being delivered.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
61	Will the Government confirm that 10pt font can be used in tables as well as graphics per the instruction in SSP Section 5 #4?	Tables were not included in the 10 pt font allowance, therefore it should be provided in 12 point font. The 10 pt font may be applied to headers and footers.	The SSP has been updated to authorize headers and footers in the 10 pt font.
62	Will the Government consider changing the evaluation rating from acceptable/unacceptable to an adjectival rating based on a best value approach for both Technical Acceptability and Past Performance volumes?	Thank you for your suggestion, at this time, the Government will be maintaining the current acquisition strategy and source selection process outlined in the solicitation.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
63	Is this effort a new requirement? If not, can you identify any incumbents.	This is the first analytic contract released by USCC for procurement.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
64	Would the Government consider extending the proposal due date for an additional two weeks?	Based on the number of questions received, the response due date will be extended to 17 October 2018.	The SSP Section 6 and an RFP Amendment have been updated to reflect the revised due date.
65	Will the Government be providing any existing Risk Management Framework GF materials post award?	The Government does not have any intention of providing existing RMF materials post-award. The vendor shall describe in their proposal their Risk Management process.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
66	Requiring that all vendors down selected specifically have experience with BDP or DCAF will limit competition and innovative solutions. Recommend the Government consider expanding experience to include technology stacks comparable to BDP/DCAF, et al, as meeting the BDP/DCAF experience requirement.	We need companies experienced with the BDP/DCAF implementations of these technologies, not just with the individual technologies.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
67	Will the Government provide DGE datasets for machine learning training and testing?	The government should provide the necessary dataset (real or dummy) on a per call basis for machine learning analytics. In otherwords, if we put out a call for machine learning analytics we should not expect the vendor to provide their own data to develop the analytic.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
68	Since these Basic Ordering Agreements are in support of the USCC CDG, will contractors currently supporting the CDG have a potential Organizational Conflict of Interest proposing on RAINFIRE?	During initial evaluations of the support being received, it was not determined that there were any known Conflicts of Interest.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
69	Will the Government consider awarding BOAs to all eligible offerors instead of restricting the number of awards?	At this time, the Government believes there is insufficient staff to manage a large volume of BOAs.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
70	In execution, will all awardees be required to bid all release orders related to the solicitation?	It is at the discretion of the BOA holder which Calls to respond to, but to be eligible they must have a BOA.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
71	Will the development and delivery of software based analytic capabilities preclude offerors from performing software integration at any level or capacity as part of this solicitation?	Yes. The Government expects the vendor to develop each analytic to as described in the Calls. If the Government issues a solicitation to integrate the capabilities (which is not currently forecasted), there may be restrictions on integration in the future.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
72	Will the Government accept FOUO proposal submissions?	Yes, but nothing higher than FOUO will be accepted or reviewed as part of the package.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
73	If classified contract information is provided separately, will the Government accept redacted classified contract details as part of the past performance volume with the unclassified submission?	Yes.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
74	Will the Government consider including oral presentations as a secondary portion of the evaluation process.	Thank you for the suggestion, the Government does not intend to include oral presentations at this time.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
75	Is the SOW supplied for informational purposes only, as none of the sub-factors reference the Statement of work?	The SSP has been updated to cross reference the appropriate SOW sections for the source selection criteria.	The SSP has been updated to cross reference the appropriate SOW sections for the source selection criteria.
76	Will the Government clarify if the restriction for foldouts is by volume or the entire proposal?	The Government accepts the recommendation to clarify the fold out is by volume.	Section 5, Part 4 in the SSP has been updated to reflect by volume.
77	What are the Governments role and responsibilities in facilitating access to resources in the CIL, CDG, and other organizations as needed to prototype?	The Government will provide all accesses on a case-by-case basis for future analytic calls.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
78	What access can we expect to end users, key stakeholders, etc. to guide requirements gathering, hypothesis testing, user acceptance, etc?	Once an award is made on an order, the vendor will have all necessary access to "to end users, key stakeholders, etc." in order to successfully develop and deliver against the order. However, it should be noted that most interactions will be performed via unclassified locations and methods.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
79	Are there any expectations on project management style?	No.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
80	What percentage of work under this contract does the Government anticipate as modifying/enhancing existing analytics vs. developing new analytics?	At this time, initial awards will focus solely on developing new analytics. Once analytics have been accepted and deployed there will be a need for modifcation and enhancements of those deployed to production. The percentage will be dynamic based on the number of satisfied orders and the amount of modification/enhancement required.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
81	What defines standard analytics? Are there any bounds on types of algorithm, format, or size of data?	If the analytic doesn't fall into the AI/Deep Learning, Streaming, Behavior-based, or Edge (running on an endpoint or sensor) categories, then it is a standard analytic. Format and/or size of data does not change the category of the analytic. Algorithm, if it is a Deep or Machine Learning or behavior-related algorithm, can change the category to non-standard.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
82	Given the Government's intent to perform development at the lowest classification possible, what are the roles and responsibilities of both the Government and Contractor in providing data sets at the appropriate classification levels? Will sanitized data sets be provided by either the Government or Contractor?	Sanitized, or "dummy" data sets will be provided to the vendor, or a publically available data set will be identified that accurately reflect the type of data to be processed by the analytic, by the Government for use in performance against an awarded order.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
83	Given developed analytics shall preclude the use of any proprietary software or solutions, what does this mean relative to the use of any COTS products?	Non-proprietary COTS products can and should be used. This includes the use of FOSS to the greatest practical extent. Use of proprietary software or solutions should be a last resort and require Government approval by the CO.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
84	What are the roles and responsibilities of both the Government and Contractors with respect to movement of code or information from unclassified to classified environments?	The Government will facilitate the movement of data between all environments.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
85	Given the development of analytics into the targeted platforms specified (BDP and DCAF), what are the Governments roles and responsibilities in facilitating access to these platforms? What are the Government's role and responsibilities in ensuring the contractor is able to install, integrate and operate analytics within these platforms?	All installation, test, integration, and operation of analytics within the platforms will be solely performed by the Government.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
86	Are COTS tools able to be utilized for tasks such as preparing and structuring data for analysis?	For all unclassified data in an unclassified environment, there should be no restrictions on COTS products and tools utilized by the vendor.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
87	What Government development environments other than the CIL and CDG are anticipated to be used?	CDG is not a development environment. The only current development environments anticipated are BDP and DCAF.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
88	What are the Governments and contractors roles and responsibilities in determining the physical infrastructure of the contractors environment used for development and test of analytics?	The contractor has sole responsibility for determining the physical infrastructure for all development and test pre-delivery.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
89	What are the Government and contractors roles and responsibilities in creating and executing Acceptance and Test Plans?	This is described in Section 4.2.3 of the RAINFIRE SOW.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
90	How will the Request for Enhancement (RFE) process work under this contract? How will scope creep be addressed?	Only the Contracting Officer is authorized to make changes to the Calls. If the contractor believes a request or technical direction is outside of the scope of the order, they are required to notify the Contracting Officer. From there, either a new order may be solicited or a Change Order issued.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
91	What are the Governments and contractors roles and responsibilities in transitioning analytics from research and development organizations (such as DARPA and IARPA)? How will the Government ensure the necessary resources and tools are accessible to the contractor during such transition?	Future requirements may necessitate transitioning analytics from R&D organizations. In those cases, the Government will provide all relevent source information to enable the contractor's further development. After issueing future call orders, the vendor will have the opportunity to identify and request additional required information or tools.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
92	Will USCC be willing to sponsor secure/classified comms in contractor SCIF spaces?	If necessary for a Call.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
93	Is non-exclusive teaming allowed for this effort?	The Government will not dictate teaming arrangements. A contractor is only eligible to submit one prime proposal.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
94	Does 'Infrastructure' refer to Hardware, Software, or both?	In this context, Infrastructure refers to both hardware and software.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
95	What kind of sensors and/or edge devices are anticipated?	The sensors and edge devices will be described in pertinent future calls. However, it may be possible to provide an FOUO list of anticipated sensors and edges to vendor in future calls for those requirements and will be handled on a case-by-case basis.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
96	Will required hardware be procured through this contract, or from another buying vehicle?	Minimal hardware required specifically and solely for the purpose of the development of a specific analytic (non-standard) could be procured using this contract only with Government approval. Details will be outlinned in the Call as applicable.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
97	What AI/Deep learning hardware is available for development of Analytics?	Currently, there is no AI/Deep Learning Hardware available. For these types of Calls, the Government would provide the necessary development environment.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
98	What are the Governments and contractors roles and responsibilities with respect to automation, beyond developing requirements for it and complementing it?	The contractor shall not be required to provide any post-deployement automation support beyond what occurs during the Post-Delivery Maintenance Support period. Exceptions are anything stipulated in the Call or any support provided under SOW 4.3.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
99	What are the Governments role and responsibilities with respect to making edge devices and environments accessible to the contractor as needed?	The Government will make edge devices and environments accessible to the contractor, as needed and based on the requirements in the Call.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.
100	What are the Governments role and responsibilities in making locations and environments accessible to the contractor for the purpose of providing Analytic Infrastructure Support?	The Government will not provide environments for analytics infrastructure support for analytics under development unless stipulated in the Call. If stipulated in the Call, the Government will make all necessary locations an environments accessible to the contractor.	No changes made to the solicitation documents.

File details come from the government source that posted it.