TEC_Amend_0006.pdf

HC1028-16-R-0007

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

A. Answ er questions received; reference RFP Questions Attachment, Tab 5 - TEC Services Round 5 Questions.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 2

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Nov-2016

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X HC1028-16-R-0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Sep-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

21-Nov-2016

CODE

DISA/DITCO-SCOTT

2300 EAST DRIVE - BLDG 3600

SCOTT AFB IL 62225-5406

HC1013 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HC1028-16-R-0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

(End of Summary of Changes)

TEC Services Round 1 Questions

Q&A Number RFP Page RFP Section/ Paragraph CLIN/ Clause/ Appendix/ Attachment/ Other Comments/Recommendations Government Answer

1 161 M.2.2 Section M provides no evaluation criteria for Volume III, Part B Technical Approach (50 pages). Can the Government please provide specific guidance as to how Volume III, Part B will be evaluated? Reference M.1.1.1. Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

2 137 L.2.2.2.1 The solicitation states "Pages shall be single spaced with 1.5 line spacing." Can the Government clarify is line spacing required to be "single line" spacing or "1.5 line spacing"? We recommend single line spacing, as it benefits document appearance and ease of review, and also avoids impacts on usable page space. L.2.2.2.1 has been updated to reflect that pages shall be single spaced.

3 138 L.2.2.2.2 The Government does not specify line spacing requirements for tables, charts, graphs, and figures. For readability, will the Government accept single line spacing in tables, charts, graphs, and figures? L.2.2.2.2 has been updated to reflect that pages shall be single spaced.

4 137 L.2.2.2.1 The Government appears to have increased line spacing to 1.5 but has not unilaterally increased page counts for proposal parts. Moving from single to 1.5 line spacing removes roughly 33% of usable lines from a page and has therefore impacted page counts. We recommend allowing single line spacing for not only usable page space but also document appearance. If the Government is requiring 1.5 line spacing, will it consider increasing all current page limits by 33% to address the line spacing change? See response to comment #2.

5 13 Paragraph 6.1.2 UC TEC Services & Facility Support Paragraph 6.1.2 states "Propose a per-cost OCLIN amount for each menu item." Currently, there is no reference in Section L or Section M to provide the pricing information for the OCLINs in the RFP. Please confirm when the Government expects the UC TEC Product Test Menu to be priced (i.e. During Contract Execution while performing the task order, or submitted with the IDIQ Solicitation Response). The Pricing information for the UC TEC Services and Facility Support Task Order is to be filled out within the RFP Attachment #6. Attachment #6 will show the base year and the 4 option years for cost and the 6 month extension.

6 22 Paragraph 6.1.2, UC TEC Product Test Menu UC TEC Services & Facility Support If the UC TEC Product Test Menu is required to be provided as part of the solicitation response, please explain how often to price the number of test events conducted. (Note 2. This number represents the number of Test Events that will be conducted.) For example the first ACCESS IP SWITCH shows 2 test events. Does this represent up to 2 tests to occur during the 66 month POP? Or does this represent up to 2 tests annually or by Contract Period since the base period is 2 years? How should we price the 6 month extension period? The tables within the TO and within the RFP Attachment #6 will provide the OCLIN numbers and the number of occurrences.

7 147 L7.2.Part A Small Business Participation Plan - RFP Section L.7.2 Part A - Small Business Participation Plan identifies that the goal for small business subcontracting is 82% of total dollars subcontracted. The Draft RFP identified the small business subcontracting goal based on DISA’s Subcontracting Goal of 36% of total contract value. Based on this discrepancy, will the Government please confirm the referenced small business goal % of total contract value applicable to Section L.7.2 Part A? Please see revised Section L.7.2 and L.7.3.

8 1/SF33 #9 In the change that removed the "Draft" watermark, verbiage in # 9 was changed including removing the due date and time for proposal submission. Will the Government confirm the correct information for #9 on SF 33? Unless a subsequent RFP amendment extends the deadline, the correct information in block #9 on the SF 33 is Nov 14, 2016 1:00 pm Central time.

9 1/SF33 #11 Numbering in the Table of Contents is off beginning at Section E which is only page 91, and continuing for the rest of the table of contents. Will the Government confirm the correct page numbers in the table of contents to ensure no pages are missing? The correct page numbers for the table of contents (Page 1 of the SF33) are listed as follows: Section A (1), Section B (2-8), Section C (9-89), Section D (90), Section E (91), Section F (92-93), Section G (94-97), Section H (98), Section I (99-118), Section J (119-120), Section K (121-132), Section L (133-158) and Section M (159-167).

10 32 PWS Section C 6.3.2 PWS Section C 6.3.2 indicates there is "limited space available at the FGGM locations, office space will not be allocated to Contractor management staff at the FGGM facility." Will the Government please clarify if there is a requirement for contractors to propose a facility near FGGM to house contractor program management personnel? Based on current OPTEMPO, there is no existing requirement for contractors to propose a facility near FGGM to house contractor program management personnel.

11 136 Table 2.2 Section L, Table 2.2, Vol III Part D, lists the related Section M RFP paragraph for the SODAS SOW TO as M.2.2.2.1. Will the Government please confirm that the intended paragraph reference is M.2.2.2.2? Section L Table 2.2 has been updated

12 136, 141, 160-161 Table 2.2, L.4.2.3, M.2.1 and M.2.2 Section L Table 2.2 (page 136) and paragraph L.4.2.3 (page 141) refer to Volume III Part B Technical Approach as part of Phase Two, but no Specific Content requirements are defined. Section M, paragraphs M.2.1 and M.2.2 (pages 160-161) refer to Phase Two subfactors (Volume III Parts C through G) but does not refer to Part B. Will the Government consider removing the requirement for Volume III Part B since there does not appear to be an evaluation criteria related to that section? See response to comment #1.

13 136, 141, 160-161 Table 2.2, L.4.2.3, M.2.1 and M.2.2 Section L Table 2.2 (page 136) and paragraph L.4.2.3 (page 141) refer to Volume III Part B Technical Approach as part of Phase Two, but no Specific Content requirements are defined. Section M, paragraphs M.2.1 and M.2.2 (pages 160-161) refer to Phase Two subfactors (Volume III Parts C through G) but does not refer to Part B. Will the Government provide additional details on Specific Content requirements and evaluation criteria for Volume III Part B? See response to comment #1.

14 137, 152-153 Section L.2.2.2.1 L.2.2.2.1 and Attachment L2 Section L paragraph L.2.2.2.1 (page 137) states "Pages shall be single spaced with 1.5 line spacing." Some Attachment L2 instructions, headings, and subheadings (pages 152-153) are single spaced; is it acceptable for Summary/first page information to remain in the government's format as long as responses to Attachment L2 Items G through M observe the "single spaced with 1.5 line spacing" requirement? See response to comment #2.

15 137/143 Table 2.2/ L.6 Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices of the RFP is not listed in Table 2.2 to be included as part of the offeror's proposal and section L.6 does not reference the offeror completing Section B either. Will the Government confirm that the Offerors are not to submit Section B in their proposal? Section B information should be submitted in accordance with L.8.1.2

16 137/143 Table 2.2/ L.6 Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices is not listed in Table 2.2 to be included as part of the offeror's proposal and section L.6 does not reference the offeror completing Section B either. If Offerors are to include Section B in their proposal submission, will the Government confirm that the Offerors are to submit a blank Section B? See response to comment #15.

17 137 L.2.2.2.1 Section L.2.2.2.1 specifies "page shall be single spaced with 1.5 line spacing." and " Pages shall have at least 1 inch margins for the top, bottom, and sides (excluding headers and footers, which shall have Times New Roman, 10 point size." Will the Government please exclude the headers and footers from the 1.5 line spacing requirement? See response to comment #2.

18 137 L.2.2.2.1 In order to provide the technical level of detail necessary to meet the Government's requirement and for ease of evaluation will the Government please decrease the line spacing from 1.5 to 1? See response to comment #2.

19 137 L.2.2.2.1 Attachments L2, L3, L4, and L5 Page 137, L.2.2.2.1 states "Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the font type/text size shall be Times New Roman, 12 point size." Will the Government please allow Offerors to modify the section L Attachments L2, L3, L4, and L5 for ease of formatting submission, while maintaining the integrity of the original document? If not, will the Government please provide the Microsoft Word Version of section L attachments? The offeror shall submit attachments L2, L3, L4, and L5 in the Government's provided formats.

20 138 L.2.2.2.2 Paragraph L.2.2.2.1 specifies "Pages shall be single spaced with 1.5 line spacing." Paragraph L.2.2.2.2 does not specify line spacing for tables, charts, graphs, and figures. Will the Government please exclude tables, charts, graphs, and figures from this requirement to allow for the ease of evaluation and readability?+D14 See response to comment #3.

21 139 L.3.0 Will the Government allow a Glossary for Volume I: Executive Summary? The TEC Services RFP has been updated to include a Volume Cover Page, Table of Contents, and Glossary for all Volumes. Table 2.2 has been updated.

22 139 L.2.3.2.2 Proposal Markings - Section states that no markings prohibiting the copying and pasting of text for Government use specific to this acquisition may be used. Will the Government clarify how the offeror shall identify and protect proprietary information? The Government will not dictate or instruct how Offerors identify and protect their proprietary information. For reference purposes only, Offerors are directed to FAR 52.215-1(e ).

23 142/153/164 Sections L.5.3.1, M.2.3 L.5.3.1, Attachment L2, and M.2.3 Regarding characteristics or aspects for evaluation of the Past Performance Information Sheets, paragraph L.5.3.1 (page 142) refers to "Section M.2.3: Past Performance Factor and the subparagraphs thereto." Section M.2.3, paragraph M.2.3.2 Relevancy Assessment (page 164) lists relevancy criteria one through three, but no additional subfactors. On the second page of Attachment L2 (page 153), item H specifies a requirement to illustrate how experience on the referenced/cited program applies to "applicable subfactors under the technical/management factor in Section M." This suggests responses to Attachment L2, Item H must also respond in their context to Phase One Subfactors 1-6 and Phase Two Subfactors 1-5, including Sample Task Orders. Will the Government please clarify what "applicable subfactors under the technical/management factor in Section M" are required for L2 Item H response? Any of the 11 subfactors listed in the Technical/Management Factor are appropriate citations.

24 144 L.6.1 L.6.1 states …”If needed, the proposed subcontractor may submit its unsanitized cost breakout directly to the CS/KO.” Would the Government confirm that subcontractors are to submit unsanitized cost breakouts via email to the CS/KO, not the https://www.ditco.disa.mil/vendors site? See revised L.6.1

25 144 and 165 L.6.3/M.2.4 Section L.6.3 states "labor rate schedules shall include (but separately identify) prime contractor, subcontractor, and inter-divisional transfer rates." Section M.2.4 states the Government "will apply estimated labor hours for each year of contract performance to each offeror's proposed fully burdened rates for each labor category" and that "estimated labor hours used for evaluation purposes will not be provided to the Offerors until after award" for each of the three cost factors. Will the Government please clarify how labor hours will be distributed across prime contractors and subcontractors? The Government will apply the evaluated hours to the composite labor category rate.

26 146 L.7.1 Will the Government allow a Table of Contents and a Glossary for Volume VI: Contract Documentation? See response to comment #21.

27 147 and 165 L.7.2.d , M.2.4.b, and M.2.4.c Section M.2.4.b and M.2.4.c state "estimated labor hours used for evaluation purposes will not be provided to the Offerors until after award" for each of the three cost factors. Given the total evaluated price will not be known to Offerors, will the Government please clarify if "TBD" is an acceptable entry in the "Dollar Value" field of the Small Business Participation Plan Commitment Table on page 147? Estimated dollar values are permissible entries for the Small Business Commitment Table.

28 148 L.8.1 The Content and Organization outline for Volume VII does not match up with the Parts identified in Table 2.2 or later in L.8 starting at e. Part E – Quality Control Plan and f. Part F – DD254. Will the Government confirm the outline should be e. Part E - SCRM Plan, f. Part F - Quality Control Plan, and g. Part G - DD254? The Content and Organization outline for Volume VII in section L.8.1 has been updated to match Table 2.2 and L.8.

29 148 L.7.3/M.2.4 Section L.7.3 states "Offerors shall provide their proposed goals in terms of percent of the offeror's proposed pricing for the period of performance." Section M.2.4 states "estimated labor hours used for evaluation purposes will not be provided to the Offerors until after award" for each of the three cost factors. Given the total evaluated price will not be known to Offerors, will the Government please clarify how Offerors should specify the subcontracting goals in their proposal? Please reference revised Section L.7.2 and L.7.3.

30 152 L Attachment L2 To allow ample space for responses to L2 items A through F on the summary/first page of Attachment L2, is it acceptable to remove instructions and explanatory notes currently included in the form as long as all item headings and subheadings are retained in our response? See response to comment #19.

31 162 M.2.2.1.6 In Section M.2.2.1.6, the Government describes the number of linkages an accurate JCAP IATM will possess. Will the Government please provide the definition of an "accurate linkage", or what constitutes a complete or accurate linkage, as a "linkage", in architectural expressions, can be defined in numerous ways? M.2.2.1.6 has been updated to change "linkage" to "evaluation requirement" per NRR KPP Guidebook, Appendix C, dated 22 May 2015.

32 162 M.2.2.1.5 Volume II Part B - 1+D215 pages are allowed for Phase One Subfactor responses including Subfactor 5: ISO 9001 Certification where the offeror must provide a copy of the ISO 9001 compliance certificate. The Certificate is one page in length. Will the Government allow the certification evidence to be excluded from page count limitations to allow the offeror to describe the specific details and amplifying credentials of the ISO 9001 certification? RFP Section L, Table 2.2 has been updated to exclude the ISO 9001 certification from the 15 page count limitation for Volume II, Part B.

33 163 M.2.2.2.2 Section M.2.2.2.2 contains two evaluation criteria (M.2.2.2.2.a and M.2.2.2.2.b) that reference specific requirements in the SODAS TO SOW. Will the Government confirm that the page count allocated in Section L (30-pages), is solely intended for Offerors to submit responses to SODAS TO SOW requirements 6.1.1.b, 6.2.a, and 6.2.i, and are not intended to include a "Test Plan" and a "T&E Automation and Instrumentation Support Whitepaper"? The Government's response requirement for the SODAS sample task order is to provide a Test Plan and T&E Automation and Instrumentation Support Whitepaper. Section L, Table 2.2 has been updated to clarify the response requirement.

34 163 M.2.2.2.2 Section M.2.2.2.2 contains two evaluation criteria (M.2.2.2.2.a and M.2.2.2.2.b) that reference specific requirements in the SODAS TO SOW. Will the Government please remove the "(To be provided with the response to this PWS)" statements in the SODAS TO PWS to remove confusion about what content will be evaluated per Section M? See response for comment #33.

35 163 M.2.2.2.1 Section M.2.2.2.1 states that the, "Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed use and demonstrated understanding of SBTD methods, automation, and instrumentation". Will the Government please clarify if the references to Automation and Instrumentation are intended to mean SBTD Automation and SBTD Instrumentation, rather than a generalized request for test automation and test instrumentation support? The Government does not intend for "SBTD" to apply to "automation" or "instrumentation."

37 2 B CDRL and Manpower Reporting Comment: CLINs have not been provided for CDRLs and Manpower Reporting. While these would be Not Separately Priced (NSP), such CLINs are generally provided in services contracts to identify and track these requirements.

Question Recommendation: Please provide NSP CLINs for CDRLs and Manpower Reporting in Section B to allow for reporting and tracking consistency across the life of the contract. The Government is not providing NSP CLINs for CDRLs and Manpower Reporting.

38 12 C.6.1 SCA Type Labor for Administrative Support during TO Performance Comment: The PWS states, "In support of specific TOs issued for these seven performance areas, the Contractor shall possess the technical competencies and mission expertise to provide full T&E lifecycle support to include T&E planning, execution, data collection, analysis, and reporting." However, the list of Labor Categories in the RFP do not appear to cover full lifecycle support for T&E to include planning, execution, data collection, analysis, and reporting. For instance, cost effective management of TO data collection, analysis, and reporting requires support from administrative assistants, technicians and other hourly (non-exempt) employees.

Question/Recommendation: In order to effectively and efficiently price and perform Task Orders during contract performance, suggest the addition of SCA type Labor Categories (such as Admin Assistant, Technician, etc.), and inclusion of the appropriate WD wage/salary tables as attachments to the RFP. Labor categories for this requirement are reflected in Section C.

39 15 C.6.1.2.1 a PWS Outside Reference Clarification Comment: "Develop standards compliance and conformance concepts, methods, and detailed test plans and procedures as outlined in JITC Instruction 380-50-02, Section 8." Currently there are no "sections" in the JITC instruction, unless the TEC draft is written to a draft of JITC Instruction 380-50-02 that has not been released yet. There are chapters in the version dated 10 September 2010. Chapter 8 of the instruction discusses ICTOs, not standards compliance and conformance concepts. Standards compliance and conformance are discussed in Chapter 6.3 of the instruction.

Question/Recommendation: Revise the reference to JITC Instruction 380-50-02 section number to chapter number to accurately reflect the correct chapter number in Instruction 380-50-02. PWS 6.1.2.1.a has been updated to reflect the correct chapter number in JITC Instruction 380-50-02.

40 16 C.6.1.3 Clarification Regarding Test and Evaluation Master Plan Comment: The PWS states, "Performance Area 1.3: DT&E. In support of U.S. Code Title 10, Section 139b requirements, and to increase JITC’s ability to verify the design, development, integration, and technical characteristics of new or enhanced capabilities prior to their acceptance and consideration for operational use, the Contractor shall support JITC in the planning and preparation for, conduct of, and reporting on DT&E. These DT&E services will be provided in support of capabilities being delivered by developers using both conventional development methods, as well as advanced methods such agile and Test Driven Design (TDD) approaches. The Contractor shall make use of SBTD methods such as combinatorial test methods, instrumentation and automation, and other advanced approaches, where appropriate, to improve the overall efficiency, effectiveness, rigor, and timeliness of JITC’s DT&E support. The types of systems that the Contractor may be requested to provide DT&E support of include DISA programs pertaining to enterprise services, cloud computing, mobility and UC, and other emerging technologies being adopted by DoD. The Contractor shall provide DT&E support that includes, but is not limited to: ....." Yet Performance Area 1.3 does not include a Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) as a deliverable.

Question/Recommendation: Include the required TEMP as a deliverable under 6.1.3. "TEMP input" is a required deliverable under PWS sections 6.1.3.1, 6.1.3.2, and 6.1.3.3.

41 32 C.6.3.3.a Contract Staffing Comment: 6.3.3.a states that The Contractor shall notify the affected TO COR no later than 10 business days prior to the planned reassignment of contractor personnel providing TO support.

Question/Recommendation: Does this stipulation pertain only to those personnel who resign or are terminated from employment or in all cases that the Contractor needs to shift personnel due to changing government requirements. If this requirement pertains to all cases, it will severely constrain the management and performance of TOs that have dynamic requirements. In a dynamic testing environment where a hundred or more TOs may be active at any given time, the Contractor's ability to report shifts in personnel assisgnments10 business days in advance of such a change is unrealistic. Suggest a revision to the wording in 6.3.3.a as follows, "Contractor will notify the TO COR regarding changes in personnel supporting the TO as soon as the Contractor is aware of the change." PWS section 6.3.3.b has been updated to reflect the following: "Contractor will notify the TO COR regarding changes in personnel supporting the TO no later than 5 business days prior to the planned reassignment of contractor personnel providing TO support."

42 37 C.6.3.5.2 6.3.5 Training.

Comment: The RFP states, "The Contractor is responsible for completing DoD, DISA, JITC and local post mandated training requirements in performance of the contract. Annual mandatory training is required within 60 days of employment and at least annually thereafter by all contractors and subcontractors. The mandatory training requirements typically change each year and therefore are not listed in this document. However, the DISA Training Portal Matrix provides details regarding the annual mandatory training requirements and associated due dates. The JITC training office provides access to all training sources, and contractors are allowed to attend/make use of the training opportunities provided."

Deliverable: Training Certificates (when so required) (CDRL A001) Question/Comment: Given DoD, DISA, JITC annual training is considered mandatory under the contract, and the costs associated with such training are applicable to all TOs under the ID/IQ contract, please confirm that these costs are to be accounted for in the development of the CPFF and FFP Ceiling Rates through application of an indirect rate similar to the costs associated with Key Personnel on the contract. Recommend the Government provide the modules and estimated hours to complete DoD, DISA, JITC mandated training within the RFP so that all Offerors may accurately account for such costs in their proposal pricing. Additionally recommend the Government provide the DISA Training Portal Matrix as a reference within the RFP or as part of the Bidders Library. PWS section 6.3.5.2 has been updated to include the DISA Mandatory Training Portal Matrix. The Government confirms that training costs are to be accounted for in the development of the Cost Reimbursable and Fixed Price ceiling rates through the application of an indirect rate.

43 41 C.7.1.2.3.9g Contract Level Withhold Comment: The RFP states, "As allowed by FAR 52.216-7, the Contractors shall withhold 15 percent of the fee amount on all cost reimbursable TOs until acceptance of final TO deliverables or TO Closeout Report, at which time the final voucher for all remaining costs shall be submitted for payment. The 15 percent withhold amount shall be identified on each interim TO voucher until final TO vouchers are submitted."

Given the nature of the TO be a few months to a few years, some for a partial employee, some with multiple employees up to 20 or more, withhold on a TO by TO basis is administratively burdensome. We understand the need for the Government to withhold adequate funds for all CPFF TO's; however, this can be accomplished at the IDIQ Contract level ensuring up to $100K is withheld across all CPFF TOs, and can be tracked and reported as part of Offeror's bi-weekly invoice.

Question/Recommendation: Suggest rewording as follows "As allowed by FAR 52.216-7, the Contractors shall withhold 15 percent of the fee amount on all cost reimbursable TOs until acceptance of final TO deliverables or TO Closeout Report, at which time the final voucher for all remaining costs shall be submitted for payment. The 15 percent withhold amount shall be identified and reported at the IDIQ Contract level with the fee retainage noted for each TO interim voucher on every bi-weekly invoice until a final TO voucher is submitted." Section 7.1.2.3.9.h of the PWS has been revised. Fixed-fee withholding for the contract will remain at the task order level.

44 48 C.7.1.2.3.9d Labor Category Hours Tracking Comment: The RFP states, "The Contractor shall employ job order cost accounting down to the level of individual TOs and their associated CLINs and SubCLINs. Invoices shall be broken down by TO and include all charges by CLIN and SubCLIN. TO invoices shall identify monthly and cumulative: fee, labor rates, labor hours per labor category, name of employees in each labor category, labor hours per employee, total labor hours, travel (to include per diem, airfare, and car rental), and ODCs."

Questions/Recommendation: Given labor rates for CPFF are at the Labor Category Level Contractor will invoice accordingly for CPFF TO's as such Labor Categories and hours per Labor Category, along with a list of employees charging to the TO will be provided on each TO invoice. Suggest rewording as follows "CPFF TO invoices shall identify monthly and cumulative: fee, labor rates, labor hours per labor category, total labor hours, name of employees charged to the TO, travel (to include per diem, airfare, and car rental), and ODCs. FFP TO invoices shall identify monthly milestones." The Government's invoice requirement for FFP and CPFF TOs is reflected in PWS section 7.1.2.3.9d.

45 135-137 L.2.2 Proposal Organization - Front Matter and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Comment: L.2.2 states "The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits as specified in Table 2.2 below." Table 2.2 makes no provision for Volume Cover Pages for Volumes II through VII, nor does it provide for TOCs or a Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms in Volumes VI or VII.

Question/Recommendation: To support consistency in organization of volumes and ease of review, please confirm that it is acceptable for Offerors to include a Volume Cover Page and Volume TOC for all proposal Volumes (I through VII), in addition to the Master Table of Contents for all Volumes which is included in Volume I and adjust Section L accordingly. Also, please confirm there is no requirement for a Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms in Volumes VI or VII. See response to comment #21.

46 136, 141, 160-162 L.2.2, L.4.1, L.4.2.3, M.2.1, M.2.2 Evaluation Factors for Phase Two, Part B Technical Approach Comment: Section L requires the submittal of a 50 page Technical Approach addressing "Section C/PWS", yet Section M does not identify this area as being rated (only Subfactors 1-6 are addressed in Section M). Section L provides an overall organization for Volume III: Technical Management Phase Two that includes 50 pages for Part B Technical Approach (L.4.2.3). Section L also states that the content should address "each technical/management subfactor" (L.4.1) which are described in Section M . Part B Technical Approach of Volume III is not addressed anywhere in M.2.1 or M.2.2 nor is any direction provided within Section L as to what Offerors shall address in the 50 pages allocated to the overall technical approach to accomplishing the many tasks in Section C/TEC PWS. Further, Section M does not state how this 50 page allocation will be included in the evaluation of offeror proposals or how it will be weighted in the best value tradeoff evaluation.

Question/Recommendation: To ensure all Offerors may provide a compliant Volume III, Part B Technical Approach, please provide specific guidance/instructions on what Offerors are to address in Volume III, Part B Technical Approach in Section L and provide the evaluation criteria for Part B; Section C/PWS; Technical Approach, in Section M. See response to comment #1.

47 137 L.2.2.2.1 Line Spacing Comment: L.2.2.2.1 states "Pages shall be single spaced with 1.5 line spacing."

Question/Recommendation: Please confirm that this is intended to be "Pages shall be single spaced with 1.5 line spacing between paragraphs." See response to comment #2.

48 137, 148, 150 L.2.2 (Table), L.8.1, L.8.6 Volume VII Construct Comment: L.8.1 Content and Organization (Volume VII) lists:

The Contract Documentation Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

a. Part A: Solicitation/Contract Form

b. Part B - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors

c. Part C - Other Information (Company Information Specific to the resultant contract)

d. Part D – Organizational and Consultant Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan

e. Part E – Quality Control Plan

f. Part F – DD254 However, L.8.6 Part E describes the requirement for a SCRM Plan.

Questions/Recommendation:

Please confirm that the SCRM Plan is Part E of Volume VII and update L.8.1 parts (e) through (f) as follows:

e. Part E - SCRM Plan

f. Part F – Quality Control Plan

g. Part G – DD254 See response to comment #28.

49 137, 148 and 149 L.2.2, L.8.1, L.8.2.1, L.8.2.2-L.8.2.5 Volume VII, Part A Content Comment: Table L.2.2 references Part A of Volume VII as Transmittal Letter and SF 33. L.8.2 describes the content for Part A as "The offeror's proposal shall include a scanned copy of the signed cover page of the solicitation and a digital copy (as described in L.2.3) of the Offeror’s proposal. Section B Supplies or Services and Costs/Prices will be completed by the Government upon contract award. Section D Packaging and Marking, Section E Inspection and Acceptance, and Section F Delivery and Performance will be specified in the individual TOs." L.8.2.1-L.8.2.5 go on to describe how the Solicitation Parts A, B, G, H, and I are acknowledged and affirmed by the Offeror by completions of all appropriate blocks in the SF33 and signature in block 17 of the SF33, although there is some language in these solicitation sections which seem to allude to inclusion of additional pages over and above the signed cover page.

Question/Recommendation: Please affirm the following regarding Volume VII, Part A content:

1. Volume VII, Part A consists solely of the signed SF33. The signed SF33 along with the full digital upload submission of the Offeror as described in L.2.3 constitute the "Offeror."

2. Section B will be completed by the Government at time of award. Offeror's pricing response shall be provided solely within the Volume V - Cost Proposal portion of Offeror's digital submission per L.8.2.2.

3. Solicitation Section's G, H, and I, are acknowledged by the Offeror by submission of the signed SF33 and Offerors full digital submission per L.8.2.3, L.8.2.4, and L.8.2.5. Please reference revised Section L.8.0.

50 141 L.4.2.3.i Sample Resumes Comment: The key personnel under this highly complex, critical contract will provide the necessary management and guidance for successful execution of all tasks which should be critical to the Government's best value determination.

Question/Recommendation: In order to ensure that the Government is evaluating actual proposed personnel that will be provided by the successful offeror would the Government consider requiring contingent hire letters or confirmation that the personnel are current employees of the offeror? The Government's requirement for sample resumes is reflected in RFP Section L.4.2.3.j

51 142 L.5.3.1 Past Performance Information Sheets Comment: Section L.5.3.1 states, "Offeror shall submit information in accordance with Attachment L2 Past and Present Performance Information Sheet."

Question/Recommendation: May Offerors adjust the format of Attachment L2 so long as the content is presented as described and in the same order. See response to comment #19.

52 142 L.5.3.1 Past Performance Task Order Identification Comment: L.5.3.1.a states "If an offeror submits past performance information for an ID/IQ contract, then the offeror must identify a specific TO under that specific ID/IQ contract." If the citation is limited solely to facets of the ID/IQ delivered for only one Task Order, the reference would not be representative of the breadth and scope delivered by the Offeror across the ID/IQ period of performance for elements such as the contract Cost/Price, annual value, date, times frames, scope, etc. Only the full collection of Task Orders delivered by the Offeror under the ID/IQ would represent the past performance of the Offeror under an ID/IQ and be comparable to this effort which will be an ID/IQ with scope delivered across multiple Task Orders.

Question/Recommendation: Please confirm that it is not the Government's intention that the past performance references description of relevancy be limited to only one specific task order under an ID/IQ contract, and the Government will allow for a collection of Task Orders to be cited as representative of the complexity of the full spectrum of services covered under the ID/IQ contract. Further that the wording at L.5.3.1 should read "If an offeror submits past performance information for an ID/IQ contract, then the offeror must identify a specific collection of TOs under that specific ID/IQ contract." The Government's criteria for past performance information is reflected in RFP Section L.5.3.1.

53 144 L.6.1 L.6.1 Cost/Price Information Comment: 7.6.1 states "If a subcontractor relationship exists, subcontract costs must also be delineated in accordance with the requirements above. If needed, the proposed subcontractor may submit its unsanitized cost breakout directly to the CS/KO. The subcontractor shall also provide contact information for its cognizant DCAA office."

Question/Recommendation: Our interpretation is that this would be needed should the subcontractor consider the data to be proprietary in nature. Please confirm that is the intent of this paragraph. Additionally, if the subcontractor deems it necessary to submit directly to the CS/KO due to the proprietary nature of the information, will they be required to obtain an External Certification Authority (ECA) and also upload via the DITCO portal or will they provide their proprietary submission directly to the CS/KO via email? See response to comment #24.

54 145 L.6.3.1 Labor Category Rate Ceilings Comment: The RFP defines rate ceilings as follows, "CPFF Schedule of Rates – CEILING. The labor rate schedule proposed in the CPFF Pricing Scenario will be used as the ceiling labor rates for pricing of all CPFF TOs issued under this ID/IQ contract. The CPFF rate ceiling will be based on the proposed fully burdened labor rates for each labor category, and be considered negotiated ceiling labor rates. The Government will not be obligated to pay any additional amount should labor category level costs (direct/indirect) incurred, during contract/TO performance, or at final rate settlement, exceed the fully burdened negotiated labor category ceiling rate thresholds set in the CPFF Schedule of Rates. In the event the incurred or final labor rates are less than the negotiated ceiling rates, the negotiated TO rates will be reduced to conform to the lower rates. " Given Task Orders can vary in size from a few thousand dollars (for less than one FTE) to many millions of dollars (up to 20+ FTEs), monitoring CPFF labor category ceiling rates at the TO level for this single award IDIQ is unduly restrictive to the Contractor and the Government. Offeror understands the intent that on Cost Plus orders, the average of the labor rates billed for a particular labor category could not exceed the ceiling rate (Joe's billing rate could be higher as long as the average of Joe and Jack's rate were below the labor cat ceiling rate) but assessing this on a TO by TO basis will in many instances preclude the Contractor from supplying 'Joe' on a quick turn CPFF effort.

Question/Recommendation: To ensure the contract is Offered and performed to the same requirements, and allow for TOs that may require niche services by an employee on the higher pay scale within a Labor Category, please allow tracking and monitoring of the average labor category ceiling rates at the IDIQ level on a contract year basis and apply any required adjustments to CPFF TO's as a percentage across all TO's. Adjust RFP language accordingly. The Government appreciates the recommendation however it will not be implemented.

55 147 L.7.2 L.7.2 Part A - Small Business Participation Plan Comment: The DRFP contained standard DISA Subcontracting Goals as follows: Small Business: 36%, Small Disadvantaged Business: 5%, Women-Owned Small Business: 5%, Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business: 3% HUB Zone Small Business: 3%, Veteran-owned Small Business (VOSB) 3%. Note: The above small business participation targets represent the Government‘s assessment of appropriate minimums expressed as a percentage of total contract value.

The final RFP states, "All Offerors, including small businesses, submitting a proposal as a prime contractor are required to submit a Small Business Participation Plan. Based on market research and historical subcontracting achievements, the goal for small business subcontracting is 82% of total dollars subcontracted." Given the standard DISA goals, 82% of subcontracted dollars seems excessive; however, this may have been a inadvertent transposition of "28%", since 28% seems in line with the goals originally stated in the DRFP. An 82% small business subcontracting goal will preclude the use of large businesses that may be required across the life of the program.

Question/Recommendation: Please clarify the Small Business subcontracting's goal and also provide specific socio-economic subcontracting goals within the small business goal. Please see revised Section L.7.2 and L.7.3.

Comment: Per the RFP, "Small Business Participation and Commitment. The Government’s assessment of small business participation and commitment as measured against the total contract value which is separate from the FAR requirement for Contracting Officer review and acceptance of an Offeror‘s Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Large business Offerors shall ensure that individual subcontracting plan submissions are consistent with proposal information. All Offerors shall provide the Proposed Participation Dollars and Percent of Estimated Contract Value for the period of performance."

Hours applied against FFP and CPFF pricing scenarios to provide a projected total contract value will not be provided until after award. Offeror will not know the total price of the contract nor will Offeror be able to project the type of support required by future Task Orders.

Question/Recommendation: Should total contract value be based upon the projected $480M ID/IQ expected value of the ID/IQ contract since total submitted price will not be known by the Offeror until award? Please see revised Section L.7.2 and L.7.3.

57 148 L.7.2 Table 7-2 "Time Frame" Comment: Table 7.2 - Small Business Participation Plan Commitment Table requires a breakdown of:

• Name of Company

• Type of Business

• Type of Products or Services

• Subcontract Type

• Dollar Value

• Timeframe

• Nature of Commitment Question/Recommendation: Please define what Offeror is to complete in the column "timeframe". Would this be the contract years that we expect the business to perform in, for example CY1 through CY5? Please see revised Section L.7.2 and L.7.3.

58 166 and 167 M Evaluation Criteria for Quality Control Plan Comment: In keeping with the criteria applied to the other plans included in this volume (M.2.6 OCCI Plan and M.2.7 SCRM) it would follow that the QCP be evaluated as acceptable/unacceptable when addressing the items noted in Section 7.2.1 of the TEC PWS.

- Please provide evaluation criteria that will be applied to the Quality Control Plan to be provided as part of Volume VII Contract Documentation. Section M.2.8 Quality Control (QC) Plan has been added.

Comment: The evaluation criteria describes the contract term and price evaluation as follows, "M.2.4.b, The period of performance for evaluation purposes is a two year base period, three 1-year option periods, one 6-month option period, and the 6 month option to extend IAW FAR 52.217-8." [66 month term + 6 month option to extend] It additionally states, "M.2.4.1, The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based on the total price proposed for Task Order-0001 (Section J Attachment 7), Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Pricing Scenario Template (Section J Attachment 8), and FFP Pricing Scenario Template (Section J Attachment 9) to include the base period of 12 months, all option periods, and the option pricing for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. FAR 52.217-8 authorizes the Government to require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. The pricing proposal should include a separate line item for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. " The period of performance for evaluation purposes as written appears to conflict with the evaluation periods defined in M1.1.4. Specifically, M.2.4b appears to require pricing of two (2) six months option/extension periods. Conflicts with paragraph M.2.4.1. Additionally, M.2.4.1 lists the base period as 12 months versus 24 months.

Question/Recommendation:

1. Is the contract Base Period 24 months (contract years 1 and 2), or 12 months (contract year 1). Update Sections B, L, M, and Attachments 6 through 10 accordingly.

2. What and how many "priced" options are there? FAR 52.217-9 contractually limits services contracts POP (for priced options) to 60 months per FAR 16.505(c). Sections B, L, M and the pricing attachments vary. Are there 3 one year options, 4 one year options, or some variation with 1/2 year priced options?

3. FAR 52.217-8 allows for one option to extend services of no more than 6 months, but this is not a priced option, rather it is evaluated by taking 1/2 of the last priced contract year and adding that to the 5-year price for a total evaluated price. It appears this 6 month option is "priced" per Section B, then evaluated again per Section M and Attachments 6 through 10. Please clarify.

1. TEC Ordering period is 66 months. The ordering period does not include the 52.217-8, 6 month extension of services timeframe.

Base Period: July 29, 2017 – July 28, 2019 Option Period 1: July 29, 2019 – July 28, 2020 Option Period 2: July 29, 2020 – July 28, 2021 Option Period 3: July 29, 2021 – July 28, 2022 Option Period 4: July 29, 2022 – January 28, 2023.

2. There are 4 priced option periods (Option Period 1 through 4), excluding FAR 52.217-8 period. FAR 16.505(c) does not apply to this contract as this contract is not considered Advisory and Assistance Services.

3. Incorrect, the 52.217-8 period is not priced per Section B. The 52.217-8 period is separate from the Option 4 Period.

Comment: Attachment 2 states, "DISA/JITC is the single approving authority for all equipment listed on the UC APL. The UC APL is the single approved source for the acquisition of telecommunications equipment that is to be connected to the DISN. The UC APL is used by all Military Departments and DoD agencies in the acquisition of communications equipment that is to be connected to the Defense Information Systems Network (DISN) as defined by the UCR. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 6211.02D, DISN Responsibilities, 24 January 2012, Enclosure B. Policy. Para 1.c. (4) states: “CC/S/As shall procure or operate UC products listed on the DoD UC APL, as applicable, unless granted an exception to policy IAW DoDI 8100.04.”

Question/Recommendation: Confirm reference as Defense Information Systems Network (DISN) or Department of Defense Information Network (DoDIN). Suggest the ICM be supported outside of the OCLIN menu under Task 2 'UC TEC Services & Facility Support' to clearly define infrastructure, Cyber, and IO testing requirements prior to the selection of a menu item. Defense Information Systems Network (DISN) and Department of Defense Information Network (DoDIN) are different and the DISN is an integral part of the DODIN.