Attachment 9 QandA Amendment 0001.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted May 26, 2022

Attached to: Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PHNSY&IMF) Code 109 Information Technology and Cybersecurity Support Services Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: HC101922R0006
Issued by: Defense Information Systems Agency

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 27, 2023

This solicitation notice seeks proposals for a single-award firm-fixed price contract to provide information technology and cybersecurity support services to the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility Code 109. The services include general IT and cybersecurity capabilities in compliance with DoD, DoN, NAVSEA, and DoE requirements. The period of performance is five years with a one-year base period and four one-year options. The contract will be evaluated using best value tradeoff and has a small business set-aside with a NAICS code of 541519 and size standard of $30 million. Proposals are due on June 6, 2022 and the work will occur at PHNSY & IMF locations in Hawaii and Guam, potentially expanding to the INDOPACOM area of responsibility.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PHNSY&IMF) Code 109 Information Technology and Cybersecurity Support Services, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
ADDENDUM WITH TRACK CHANGES Amendment 0001.docx	DOCX document	May 26, 2022
Solicitation HC1019-22-R-0006 Amendment 0001.docx	DOCX document	May 26, 2022
Attachment 1 PWS Revised 26MAY2022 Amendment 0001.docx	DOCX document	May 26, 2022
Attachment 7 RFP CLIN Pricing Worksheet_Amend 0001.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 26, 2022
Attachment 10 Mission-Essential Contractor Services.docx	DOCX document	May 16, 2022
Attachment 8 BVTO Eval Tables.doc	DOC document	May 16, 2022
Attachment 7 RFP CLIN Pricing Worksheet.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 16, 2022
Attachment 6 GFP Attachment.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 16, 2022
Attachment 4 QASP.docx	DOCX document	May 16, 2022
Attachment 2 PWS Attachment A.docx	DOCX document	May 16, 2022
Attachment 1 PWS.docx	DOCX document	May 16, 2022
SOLICITATION HC1019-22-R-0006..pdf	PDF	May 16, 2022
Attachment 9 Questions Template.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 16, 2022
Attachment 5 DD Form 254.pdf	PDF	May 16, 2022
Attachment 3 PWS Attachment B.docx	DOCX document	May 16, 2022

Show all 15

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

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.

QUESTIONS

Question No.	Document	Page No.	Paragraph No.	Section No.	Question/Comment	Responses
1	RFP	Pg 151 of 153	5	B.1.f	The specificity of the Key Personnel requirements and the significant number of key personnel relative to the total level of effort significantly limit competition and place the incumbent contractor in an unfairly strong position. As an example, one of the key personnel requires experience with 25 Government specific systems that only the incumbent employee would have. This is an unreasonably restrictive requirement and will also limit innovation by not allowing very senior candidates with new ideas into the program which will be required as this program modernizes and adapts the latest advances in Oracle.

In order to ensure an appropriate level of competition and for the government to receive a best value solution, we recommend the Government reduce the Key Personnel requirements to include only the Program Manager and the Navy Qualified Validator.	As stated in the RFP, the key personnel are considered essential to the work being performed. For example, the Master Oracle Database Consultants are required to manage corporate shipyard applications. PHNSY cannot perform mission without these applications, which require master-level expertise of these systems. The Navy Qualified Validator is another example that has significant impact to PHNSY mission. This key personnel is required to ensure continued authorization to operate the IT systems at PHNSY. The Navy Qualified Validator is a hard-to-find resource, especially to ensure shipyard IT systems comply with DoD RMF regulation. The Government has reviewed the Key Personnel requirements of the PWS and has determined that the number of Key Personnel positions and the qualification requirements of the Key Personnel postiions accurately represent the Government's minimum requirements to meet its needs.
	2	SOLICITATION_HC1019-22-R-0006	1	N/A	Block 8	As this effort is a Small Business set-aside, we are respectfully requesting an extension of the solicitation due date. This opportunity is very important to our team and to the customer, therefore we are formally requesting more time to put forth a compliant proposal with beneficial solutions.	The Government believes the due date provides ample time to submit a complete proposal. Offerors had prior notice of the requirement via the RFI in addition to the 21 days the RFP is open. The RFI was posted to the GPE for 16 days and contained a substantially similar PWS. An extension would jeopardize the contract award date required in order to maintain continuity of services. As such, an extension to the due date will not be granted at this time.
	3	SF1449	1	Offer Due Date	8	Will the government, respectively, allow an extension to the current due date to allow for small businesses to adequately prepare their response?	The Government believes the due date provides ample time to submit a complete proposal. Offerors had prior notice of the requirement via the RFI in addition to the 21 days the RFP is open. The RFI was posted to the GPE for 16 days and contained a substantially similar PWS. An extension would jeopardize the contract award date required in order to maintain continuity of services. As such, an extension to the due date will not be granted at this time.
	4	Attachment 1 PWS	108 of 115	D) Evaluation of Options	ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a)	Will the Government consider either defining the transition Level of Effort (LOE) or remove the transition from the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in order to ensure a fair and reasonable evaluation without an unfair advantage for the incumbent?	Transition In will be priced separately as CLIN x018. This requirement is being evaluated as Best Value Trade Off, where the technical evaluation is more important than price. As such, the proposals will be evaluated, taking into account all aspects of the proposal. The Governemnt has elected to include transition in the TEP.
	5	Solicitation HC1019-22-R-0006	148 of 153	C) Volume III - Price	vii Proposal Organization	For the Optional CLINs x005-x016, can the Government provide the LOE for these Optional CLINs for equal LOE evaluations between offerors?	The following breakdown are merely estimates and offerors are not bound by them:

x005 6.4.12.15 Defensive GIG Operations (DGO) 2nd/3rd Shift, all shifts weekends/holidays - 4.0 FTE.

x006 6.4.13.16 Defensive Cyber Operations (DCO) 2nd/3rd Shift, all shifts weekends/holidays - 4.0 FTE.

x007 6.4.17 External Audits - 0.5 FTE.

x008 6.5.6 IT Customer Support Services Outside Normal Business Hours - Minimum 2.0 FTE on 2nd shift Monday thru Friday, and on 1st shift Saturday and Sunday.

x009 6.5.7 Cybersecurity Workforce (CSWF) - 1.0 FTE.

x010 6.5.8 Digital Signage Support - Approximately 20 mandays per year.

x011 6.5.10 Business Analysis - Minimum 2.0 FTE.

x012 6.5.12 IT Project Management - Minimum 2.0 FTE.

x013 6.5.13 Audio Visual Support - Approximately 20 mandays per year.

x014 6.5.14 Refactor Microsoft Access Applications - Minimum, refactor 20 Access databases per year.

x015 6.5.15 Video Teleconferencing Support - Approximately 20 mandays per year.

x016 6.5.18 Large Screen TV Monitor Support - Minimum, install/issue 20 large monitor per year, and provide approximately 20 mandays of support (troubleshoot problems).

6 Solicitation HC1019-22-R-0006 149 of 153 C) Volume III - Price vii Proposal Organization Regarding the FFP payment schedule, as this is a services contract based on hours worked, and the employees will be working on all deliverables throughout the year, what justification is the Government looking for that would be "deemed adequate" to not propose 12 equal monthly installments? Service contracts are often FFP. The expectation is that the proposed pricing will be divided into 12 equal monthly installments. RFP will be updated as follows: remove the sentence saying "A firm fixed price payment plan with the total dollar amount divided into equal monthly payments will not be accepted unless the offeror provides justification for this plan that the Government subsequently deems adequate." and replace with "payments will be divided into 12 montly payments; however, if the contractor wishes a different payment plan then they may submit an alternative plan with justification"

7 Solicitation HC1019-22-R-0006 149 of 153 C) Volume III - Price vii Proposal Organization Volume III-Price shall be organized as follows:

-Table of Contents -Attachment 7, RFP CLIN Pricing Worksheet -Price Narrative - to include relevant pricing information such as supporting pricing data or data other than cost or pricing information, if necessary.

How do you want Attachment 7, RFP CLIN Pricing Worksheet incorporated in Volume III? Is a reference within the Volume III TOC and narrative acceptable in the order given? Such as Attachment 7, RFP CLIN Pricing Worksheet is provided as a separate MS Excel document as provided with the RFP.	CLIN Pricing can be included in the narrative of Volume III as a graphic, illustrating the completed Attachment 7. However, regardless of reference in the narrative section, the Attachment 7, RFP CLIN pricing worksheet must be provided as a completed, stand alone, excel file. An offeror may chose to reference the pricing in Volume III rather than pasting it again in order to save page count and minimize the file size.
	8	Solicitation HC1019-22-R-0006	149 of 153	D) Volume IV - Price, #2	vii Proposal Organization	Is this requirement referring to Attachment 7, RFP CLIN Pricing Worksheet? Or is a separate MS Excel Spreadsheet to be developed? How do you want the "CLIN excel spreadsheet" included incorporated into Volume IV? Is it a reference within Volume IV TOC, or would you like it provided as a separate MS Excel document?	Yes, the statement in section Volume IV-Contract Documentaiton (2): "You must provide completed pricing information in the CLIN spreadsheet", is referring to the excel file provided as Attachment 7 to the RFP. Attachment 7 is a stand alone file. An offeror may chose to reference the pricing in Volume III rather than pasting it again in order to save page count and minimize the file size.
	9	Solicitation HC1019-22-R-0006	149 of 153	D) Volume IV - Price, #3	vii Proposal Organization	Is the Reps and Certs Statement (Paragraph B referencing completed Reps & Certs in SAM) acceptable, or does the Government want the Reps & Certs provided in the RFP to be filled out separately?	The Offeror is requested to submit the completed Reps & Certs provided in the RFP with its proposal.
	10	Solicitation HC1019-22-R-0006	149 of 153	D) Volume IV - Price, #5	vii Proposal Organization	If there is no OCCI, is the offeror required to submit an OCCI Mitigation Plan should one develops during the course of the contract?	Per the RFP, "If the offeror believes that no OCCI exists, the OCCI response shall set forth sufficient details to support such a position. If an offeror believes that an actual or perceived OCCI does exist on the instant procurement, the offeror shall submit an OCCI plan with the proposal, explaining in detail how the OCCI will be mitigated and/or avoided." If OCCI issues develop during contract performance, they will be handled as part of contract administration.
	11	Attachment 1 PWS	108 of 115	8) Place of Performance	N/A	Will all work be performed at Government Site? If not, what percentage of the existing contract has been performed on Contractor Site?	Yes, work will be performed 100% at the Government Site, unless otherwise approved by PHNSY&IMF C109 TPOC as situational telework, such as, during a pandemic.
	12	Attachment 1 PWS	108 of 115	8) Place of Performance	N/A	For personnel working on Contractor Site, do these personnel need to report on-site periodically or are they able to work via Telework?	Telework is authorized on a case-by-case basis depending on the job tasking and approved by the PHNSY&IMF C109 TPOC. Example of tasks that are must be performed on-site are, work on classified systems, work on IT equipment that is on-site, and tasks to support shipyard industrial work environment, customers and/or equipment on-site.
	13	Attachment 3 PWS Attachment B	6 of 10	6.3.6, 6.3.10 , 6.3.14, 6.3.15, 6.4.19, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3, 6.5.4, 6.5.6, 6.5.9, 6.5.16, 6.5.17	N/A	Can the Government provide historical ticket volume by 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Shift for the listed sections? Also, for those tickets not already identified by location, can the Government provide historical ticket volume by location?	The Government does not have additional historical ticket volume data beyond the information in Attachment B. Refer to Attachment B for the anticipated ticket volume by month.
	14	Solicitation HC1019-22-R-0006	Page 147 of 153	(iv) Page limitations	ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1	Paragraph (iv) excludes "executive summary" from calculating page limits yet The volume I in Table 1 of the same page requires a 5 page limit. Please clarify.	The intent of paragraph iv is that the executive summary will not be counted towards the 40 page page limit of volume II, Technical/Management. However, the Executive Summary itself, does have a 5 page limit. The other documents noted in paragraph iv that will not be considered when calculating page limits are part of volume IV, Contract Documentation.
	15	Solicitation HC1019-22-R-0006	Page 92 of 153	252.226-7001	CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE	The PHNSY Small Business set-aside solicitation contains the atypical DFAR 252.226-7001 which encourages the utilization of Indian Organizations and Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, and Native Hawaiian Small Business Concerns as part of the offerors team composition. Since the place of performance includes PHNSY, what preference, if any, will be given to the evaluation of an offer that includes an Indian/Native American company on its team?	No preference will be given in the evaluation of an offer that includes Indian/Native American companies within the team composition.
	16	Solicitation HC1019-22-R-0006	Page 92 of 153	252.226-7001	CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE	The PHNSY Small Business set-aside solicitation contains the atypical DFAR 252.226-7001 which encourages the utilization of Indian Organizations and Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, and Native Hawaiian Small Business Concerns as part of the offerors team composition. What preference (pricing or otherwise) to the proposal evaluation is given if the Prime is an Indian/Native American company?	No preference will be given in the evaluation of an offer that includes Indian/Native American companies within the team composition.
	17	Solicitation HC1019-22-R-0006	Page 92 of 153	252.226-7001	CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE	The PHNSY Small Business set-aside solicitation contains the atypical DFAR 252.226-7001 which encourages the utilization of Indian Organizations and Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, and Native Hawaiian Small Business Concerns as part of the offeror's team composition. Is the Government's inclusion of this DFARS Clause intended to limit Prime Offeror eligibility to only those entities who qualify as Indian Organizations, Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, and/or Native Hawaiian Small Businesses?	The requirement is 100% small business set aside. If the offeror meets that requirement, then the offeror has met the eligibility requirement to propose. The DFARS clause is not intended to limit Prime Offeror eligibility. The following is the prescription for that DFARS clause stating why it shall be included in the solicitation:

"Use the clause at 252.226-7001, Utilization of Indian Organizations, Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, and Native Hawaiian Small Business Concerns, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that are for supplies or services exceeding $500,000 in value."

18	Attachment 1 PWS	Global	N/A	N/A	Does the Government require Tier 2 and Tier 3 support on all shifts? If yes, can the Government provide historical support requests at the Tier 2 and Tier 3 levels and can the Government define which portions of the PWS require Tier 2 and Tier 3 support?	Yes, the government requires Tier 2 and Tier 3 support on all shifts. This is an on-call requirement for 2nd and 3rd shifts and are required for unscheduled service interruptions. The Government does not have historical ticket data.
19	Solicitation HC1019-22-R-0006	Page 151 of 153	Section f	Subfactor 6 - Management	The Government communicates that it plans to evaluate the contractor's proposal including appropriate mix of labor categories and the offeror's proposed staffing plans. Does the Government want offerors to include this information within the technical volume or does the Government intend to derive this information from the sanitized versions of the offeror's price proposals?	Labor category/rate/hours shall be provided in your proposal. Per page 149, "Offerors should ensure price proposals include detailed information regarding the resources required to accomplish the task (e.g., labor categories, labor hours, number of employees for each labor category, rates, materials, subcontractor efforts, etc.)."

The labor mix can be described in the narrative for Volume III-Price. This information allows the Government to understand the offeror's basis of estimate and is required in order for the Government to evaluate for fair and reasonable pricing. The labor mix may be provided in Volumes III (Price) and IV (Contract Documentation).

20 Solicitation 1 OFFER DUE DATE 8 Small Businesses have limited resources necessary to answer the technically challenging requirements listed in Section L.

Requesting the government extend the proposal due date two weeks to allow small businesses time to adequately prepare a response to the complex technical requirements for Volume II	The Government believes the due date provides ample time to submit a complete proposal. Offerors had prior notice of the requirement via the RFI in addition to the 21 days the RFP is open. The RFI was posted to the GPE for 16 days and contained a substantially similar PWS. An extension would jeopardize the contract award date required in order to maintain continuity of services. As such, an extension to the due date will not be granted at this time.
	21	SF1449	1	Offer Due Date	8	Will the government allow an extension to the current due date to allow for small businesses to adequately prepare their response?	The Government believes the due date provides ample time to submit a complete proposal. Offerors had prior notice of the requirement via the RFI in addition to the 21 days the RFP is open. The RFI was posted to the GPE for 16 days and contained a substantially similar PWS. An extension would jeopardize the contract award date required in order to maintain continuity of services. As such, an extension to the due date will not be granted at this time.
	22	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Would the government allow an extension for small business to have enough time to respond?	The Government believes the due date provides ample time to submit a complete proposal. Offerors had prior notice of the requirement via the RFI in addition to the 21 days the RFP is open. The RFI was posted to the GPE for 16 days and contained a substantially similar PWS. An extension would jeopardize the contract award date required in order to maintain continuity of services. As such, an extension to the due date will not be granted at this time.
	23	Attachment 3 PWS Attachment B				Request the government provide historical LOE in man hours in an updated Attachment 3 PWS Attachment B. Rationale for this request is that the complexity of some IT functions varies greatly. Example Web Development can be fairly simple or incredibly complicated requiring a huge difference in level of effort.	We do not have historical LOE in man-hours. Refer to Attachment B for the service environment.
	24	Attachment_1_PWS	110	11	11.2.1	Section 11.2.1 states that personnel performing certain task areas identified in the table above require a T5 investigation. A T5 investigation is Top Secret investigation. Consequently, request the DD254 for this effort be amended to reflect the T5 (TS) requirement.	The DD254 will remain as is to reflect Secret Level classification. The DD254 is related to the classification level (Secret) not the IT LEVEL; and the T5 investigation is related to the IT LEVEL 1 requirement, not the classification level.
	25	Attachment_1_PWS	110	11	11.2.2	Section 11.2.1 and 11.2.2 state that personnel requiring Secret or IT-II access under this contract shall undergo a favorably adjudicated Tier 3 (T3) investigation. Can the government clarify when a T3 investigation would not be performed to obtain a Secret clearance.	See the table in Section 11.1.
	26	Attachment_1_PWS	110	11	11.1	The table in section 11.1 maps PWS TASK area 6.1.1 to an IT-I level which is the key personnel section. Can the offeror assume the remaining requirements in section 6.1 requires an IT-II?	Yes, the Program Manager will be IT-II. The remainder of the key personnel will be IT-I.
	27	Attachment_1_PWS, Attachment_7_RFP_CLIN_Pricing_Worksheet.xlsx	PWS, pg. 2	6	6.1	CLIN x001 is listed as "6.1 KEY PERSONNEL" in the Attachment_7_RFP_CLIN_Pricing_Worksheet but the PWS identifies 6.1 as "PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SUPPORT". Is the intent of the CLIN 001 to capture labor for

(i) Program management activities by the Program Manager and alternate/deputy?

(ii) Or for all key personnel?

The latter is problematic since key personnel support multiple tasks under 6.2-6.5. Would the government clarify what costs should be included as part of that CLIN?	The CLIN description for 6.1 and Task 6.1 will be updated to read "Program Management Support". Key Personnel falls within "Program Management Support" as part of section 6.1.1. Pricing should be proposed by task. The intent of CLIN 001 is to caputre labor not captured and priced in other specific tasks.
	28	Attachment_1_PWS, Attachment_7_RFP_CLIN_Pricing_Worksheet.xlsx	PWS, pg. 6	6	6.2	None of the CLINs identified in the "Attachment_7_RFP_CLIN_Pricing_Worksheet" address section 6.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. Can the offeror assume that these requirements will be performed in the context of other taskings performed in PWS sections 6.1 and 6.3-6.5 and therefore should not be priced separately?	Yes, these requirements will be performed in the context of other taskings. Specifically, 6.2.3 Metrics Support, 6.2.4 Documentation 6.2.5 Meetings, 6.2.6 Call-Back Options, and 6.2.7 all reference section 6.4.
	29	SOLICITATION_HC1019-22-R-0006..pdf	147, 149	P. 147, Para
P. 149, Para1	2. vi
NA	p 147 states: "The total size of email (including all attachments) shall not exceed 20MB. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included."

p 149 states: "The file size of each document shall not exceed 20MB."

Please clarify file/email size restrictions. If Offeror's proposal exceeds 20MB are Offerors permitted to send multiple numbered emails (1of x) vice or in addition to file compression?	Page 149 will be corrected. The requirement is that "The total size of email (including all attachments) shall not exceed 20MB". The Government cannot accept a decompression program with the proposals. The RFP language will be updated to state that only a .zip file can be accepted if compressed?
	30	SOLICITATION_HC1019-22-R-0006..pdf	147	D iv	3	If necessary to convey large graphics and to maintain font sze requirements, may Offerors use 11x17 foldout pages?	No, per page 147 of 153 "Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches".
	31	SOLICITATION_HC1019-22-R-0006	148; 151	(C) Volume III – Price; ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a)	B.(1).f, Subfactor 6 - Management	The RFP states that the “Offeror shall provide generic resumes void of any personal data, to include names, addresses, company names, and dates. Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure offeror’s key personnel meet the requirements as stated in PWS 6.1.1.”

To support the government’s evaluation of key personnel and in the interest of price reasonableness verification and to ensure proposed KPs are available at the time of contract award, should the offeror include letters of intent in the cost volume that contain company name, solicitation number and employee signatures?	The Government requests that offerors do not include letters of intent with their proposals. Letters of intent will not be evaluated as part of the RFP.
	32				Is this solicitation subject to FAR clause 52.207-3, Right of First Refusal of Employment?	No, the FAR Clause is not incorporated by reference or citation in the RFP.
	33				Is the ServiceNow instance hosted on-premise or in the cloud?	ServiceNow is not hosted by PHNSY&IMF.
	34				Will the government allow any of the task areas of the PWS to be completed/executed remotely to attract a wider and more experienced pool of candidates?	No, remote work will not be allowed. Situational/Ad hoc telework may be approved on a case-by-case basis.
	35	RFP	147	iv	Is Volume I – Executive Summary limited to 5 pages?	The intent of paragraph iv is that the executive summary will not be counted towards the 40 page page limit of volume II, Technical/Management. However, the Executive Summary itself, does have a 5 page limit. The other documents noted in paragraph iv that will not be considered when calculating page limits are part of volume IV, Contract Documentation.
	36	Solicitation	148	(vii)(B)	Is the List of Table and Drawings excluded from page limits?	Yes, the List of Tables and Drawings are excluded from the page limits.
	37	Solicitation	147	iv	In which volume does Attachment 6, Government Furnished Property belong?	GFP shall be submitted as part of Volume 4-Contract Documentation
	38	Solicitation	147	iv	In which volume does Section 508 Compliance belong?	Please submit with Volume IV-Contract Documentation
	39	Solicitation	149	D3	Should the Excel Pricing Spreadsheet Attachment 7 be included in both the Pricing and the Contract Documentation volumes? Or should just SF1449 contiuation sheets be in the Contract Documentation volume?	Yes, Attachment 7, CLIN spreadsheet should be included in Volume III. Volume IV will consist of the completed SF 1449 continuation pages.
	40	PWS	108	10	In order for cleared contractor employees to have an IT-1 eligibility, they must have a TS level investigation. To justify this the DD-254 must be up to TS, and as it currently stands, it is only up to Secret. . It is beneficial to have this adjusted on the DD-254 presently, as there may be a cost associated with doing it later in the contract. Can the DD 254 be adjusted to state TS?	The DD254 will remain as is to reflect Secret Level classification. The DD254 is related to the classification level (Secret) not the IT LEVEL; and the T5 investigation is related to the IT LEVEL 1 requirement, not the classification level.
	41	PWS	6	6.2.1	Cyber Security services to C109 also to be responsible for emptying the trash in “common areas”? Please clarify.	To support a clean and safe work environment in Code 109 workspaces, both Civilian and Contractor employees shall use the appropriate Shipyard-supplied cleaner in accordance with shipyard health and safety guidelines and empty the common area (i.e., lunch/break rooms) trash receptacles to ensure that food/perishables do not remain in the receptacles overnight and over the weekend. Unfortunately, the janitorial service does not come at night so to prevent unnecessary smells, rodents, etc, we make sure to take out the trash at the end of the day.
	42	PWS	2	5	Will the C109 Government personnel be performing any technical support of the tasks identified in the PWS or will all task elements be performed exclusively by the contractor? Please clarify.	The expectation is that the contractors will perform 100% of the tasking in the PWS.
	43	PWS	110	11.1 & 11.2	In paragraph sections 11.1 and 11.2 of the PWS the government specifies that “Personnel requiring Secret and/or IT-I access under this contract/order shall undergo a favorably adjudicated Tier 5 investigation (T5) (formerly known as a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI)) as a minimum requirement.” Contractors are eligible to request security clearances and access levels only based on the clearance level required/authorized on the contract. When hiring new staff that are not cleared and requesting clearances, or when initiating periodic re-investigations for existing cleared staff, contracting companies will only be able to request investigation for eligibility for Secret, per the current DD-254 specifications. Contracting companies are not able to request specific investigation types. Investigation types are determined by the level of access that is being requested. The DD-254 and PWS for this procurement specify a clearance level of up to Secret. When hiring new staff that are uncleared and initiating a security clearance request for Secret access, DCSA will initiate a T3 investigation. Would the government consider amending the procurement DD-254 to require a Facility Security Clearance (Part 1a) and access up to Top Secret, in order to enable contractors to obtain T5 investigations for newly hired uncleared staff or for staff that require upgrades from T3 to T5 investigations?	The DD254 will remain as is to reflect Secret Level classification. The DD254 is related to the classification level (Secret) not the IT LEVEL; and the T5 investigation is related to the IT LEVEL 1 requirement, not the classification level.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated May 27, 2022.