Pre Solicitation Conference and Draft RFP QA - Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Draft RFP TEC II Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HC102821R0006
- Issued by
- Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
This draft solicitation is for Test, Evaluation, and Certification (TEC) II Services. The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) intends to award an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a total value of $1.01 billion to provide test, evaluation, and certification services including test planning, execution, data analysis and reporting. A pre-solicitation conference will be held on April 12, 2021 via Microsoft Teams to address questions on the draft solicitation. Offerors must submit any comments or questions on the draft solicitation to the points of contact provided prior to the pre-solicitation conference. The IDIQ contract will have a five-year base period and five one-year options. Task orders will be issued on both a firm-fixed price and cost-reimbursable basis.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| PreSolicitation Conference Attendee List.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| TEC II Pre Sol Conf 12 April 2021.pptx | PPTX presentation | |
| TEC II Pre-Solicitation Conference Information.docx | DOCX document | |
| HC102821R0006 - Draft.pdf |
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
Text version
Sheet1
| RFP Page | RFP Section/ Paragraph | CLIN/ Clause/Appendix/Attachment/Other | Questions/Comments/Recommendations | Answer |
| 101-102 | Section C. 8.2 Negative Incentives | The Contractor will be subject to a disincentive where staffing levels are not maintained as specified in Section 6.4.3. Vacancies must be filled with fully functional resources to perform duties within 30 calendar days. If the contractor fails to meet the AQL in filling positions within 30 calendar days, the |
invoice will be, decremented based on the number of unfilled positions and the number of days the position remains unfilled. Monthly disincentives will match the percentage of unfilled positions; the disincentives will be prorated according to the number of days in the month that any position is open
| beyond the 30 days allowed to fill. This disincentive approach appears to only be workable for FFP task orders. Can we assume that this disincentive only applies to FFP tasks? | No - Although the disincentives listed in the base contract PWS are only possible incentives that could be applied to task orders, as the task orders themselves will contain any applicable disincentives to be used, this disincentive could be used on any task order that requires a set number of FTEs (such as non-performance based task orders). The disincentive is not specifically tied to FFP task orders. | |||||
| Page 11 | 6.4.2 | Attachment C5 | 6.4.2 | SubTask 2 - Limited OT&E Event: "The contractor shall be responsible for all Test Planning, Test Execution, and Data Analysis and Reporting for this effort. This event will be a Limited OT&E Event that will focus on retesting areas that were not successful in previous testing and that the Program Office has identified as resolved. In the event" There appears to be missing text after "In the event". Will the government complete the sentence or paragraph? | The Government will change: "The contractor shall be responsible for all Test Planning, Test Execution, and Data Analysis and Reporting for this effort. This event will be a Limited OT&E Event that will focus on retesting areas that were not successful in previous testing and that the Program Office has identified as resolved. In the event " |
to: "The contractor shall be responsible for all Test Planning, Test Execution, and Data Analysis and Reporting for this effort. This event will be a Limited OT&E Event that will focus on retesting areas that were not successful in previous testing and that the Program Office has identified as resolved."
Page 11 6.4.2.2 Attachment C5 6.4.2.2 SubTask 2.2 - Limited OT&E Report: "The Limited OT&E Report will contain the final analysis and con" There appears to be missing text after "con". With the Government complete the sentence or paragraph? The Government will change: "The Limited OT&E Report will contain the final analysis and con" to: "The Limited OT&E Report will contain the final analysis and conclusions for the test event."
| 1 | Attachment C2, DD254 | Block 10 item f, Page 1. The Special Access Program (SAP) is not checked. Will SAP access be needed to support any of the expected Task Orders? | Yes - Contractor will require SAP Access under several Task Orders within the TEC II IDIQ Contract. The Government will check Block 10 (f) within the DD254. | ||
| Attachment C3 | Reference Task Order DoD Enterprise Test Framework (DETF) Task Order (SA, Tech Writer, CM and Network Services). Section 4 Objective, page 2. Will there be any required DETF touch labor support needed at Fort Huachuca? | No touch labor will be required at FHU facility for the DETF Task Order. | |||
| 5 | C | Attachment C3 | Security Clearance and Information Technology (IT) Level (C3.11.2). In the table for paragraph 11, the IT Level Access is IT-II. However, paragraph 11.2.1 defines IT-I as privileged level system access. | ||
| Since this is a Systems Administration task should the access level in the table change to IT-I? | Concur with the recommendation. Task 6.2 requires privileged access for system administration. The Government will update the language in paragraph 11.2 and 11.2.1. | ||||
| 3 | C | Attachment C4 | DT&E (C4.5.1.4). (1) How long will the contractor have to evaluate the test sufficiency of the developer’s test cases and scripts prior to conducting JITC testing? | ||
| (2) Will the contractor have access to the same test environment used by the developer in order to evaluate test sufficiency and to perform necessary rework to ensure that JITC performs adequate test sufficiency? | (1) While the exact timing is difficult to project exactly, typically, contractors will have two to four weeks to evaluate the developer's test cases and scripts prior to JITC testing. |
(2) ) JITC will coordinate contractor access to the environment but may not be able to provide direct (physical) access in all situations. JITC will coordinate access to all the developer test cases, procedures, plans, reports, and DRs. Contractor will also have access to the actual Test Infrastructure to develop test procedures, conduct testing, and verify Discrepancy Report (DR) fixes, etc.
4 C Attachment C8 Task 1: Management (C8.6.1). In order to correctly staff and price this FFP Task Order, will the Government please provide additional definition and specific functions, tasks, activities, and locations required under this task (paragraphs 6.1.1 through 6.1.44 as applicable)? For example, there are general statements in paragraph 6.1.1 related to providing administrative functions, office management, daily operations, scheduling tests, and property accountability, among others. For property accountability, defining how many line items will help determine the appropriate staff. If it's 30 line items for property accountability it could take one person part-time, but if it's 400 line items, it may take more people. Historically, the overall level of effort for the entire task order for lab support is approximately 12 FTEs (supporting both the 10 FHU and 2 at FGGM facilities). Historically, approximately 4-6 FTEs have supported UC T&E Services & Facility Support Management (C8.6.1). There are fewer than 1000 UC "accountable assets." Currently, there are 2 Government Property Custodians providing management, oversight, and accountability for the assets. Assisting with this effort are approximately 5 contractor personnel as alternates.
| 4 | C | Attachment C8 | Personnel Continuity (C8.6.1.4). Paragraph 6.1.4 requires provide personnel continuity throughout the life of the task. | |
| We recommend that the Government revise the requirement to clarify, "Provide personnel to adequately support the UC mission at all times throughout the Period of Performance." | The Government will change: "Provide personnel continuity throughout the life of the task" |
to: "Provide personnel to adequately support the UC mission at all times throughout the Period of Performance."
| 5 | C | Attachment C8 | Security and safety matters (C8.6.1.32). (1) Will the Government please clarify whether this requirement refers to physical or Information Assurance side in paragraph 6.1.32? | ||
| (2) Paragraph 6.1.32, references the UC Facility. Is this work required at FHU only? | (1) This requirement applies to both physical and Information Assurance. (2) UC testing is conducted at both FHU and FGGM locations. The SOP differs at the locations since JITC FGGM follows DISA HQs Security guidelines and JITC FHU is stand-alone. | ||||
| 5 | C | Attachment C8 | Laboratory Diagrams (C8.6.1.34). We recommend that the Government define how many diagrams and what diagrams are required for which networks. | Laboratory diagrams are the "Physical and Logical" diagrams of the UC and ATT networks. (ATT: Advance Technology Testbed) |
Every time a test is set up and equipment installed into a cabinet and hence network, the contractor shall update the appropriate diagrams to capture the changes made to the baseline networks.
| 5 | C | Attachment C8 | Diagrams (C8.6.1.35). "Ensure diagrams are available for inspection and updated at least quarterly." | |
| Will the Government please define to which diagrams this requirement refers? | Laboratory diagrams would be the "Physical and Logical" diagrams of the UC and ATT networks. (ATT: Advance Technology Testbed) |
Every time a test is setup and equipment installed into a cabinet and hence network, appropriate diagrams should be updated to capture the changes made to the baseline networks. Diagrams to be maintained are associated with the following documents (note, duplication of certain diagrams in multiple documents is intentional):
Global Network Test Facility Unified Capabilities Laboratory Cybersecurity Architecture Description, contains the following diagrams:
Hybrid Legacy to IP Topology System Design GNTF Legacy TDM Switching Systems Connectivity Diagram GNTF Mobility Connectivity Diagram Defense Research Engineering Network Connectivity Snapshot Diagram GNTF External Connections Remote Access Authentication Server Location of the GNTF, Room 156, in the JITC First Floor TEMPEST Vault GNTF Building 57305 Lab Layout GNTF Annex Building 57439B Lab Layout
Global Network Test Facility Unified Capabilities Laboratory Standard Operating Procedure, contains the following diagrams Location of the UC, Room 156, JITC First Floor TEMPEST Vault UC Building 57305 Lab Layout UC Annex Building 57439B Lab Layout
Global Network Test Facility Department Of Defense Information Network Capabilities Laboratory Standard Operating Procedure, contains the following diagrams:
Location of the DC, Room 156, JITC First Floor TEMPEST Vault DC Building 57305 Lab Layout
Individual test events will also require network diagrams to capture the configuration of the test event. The networks involved with the test generally include the GNTF UC internal Networks, the Defense Research Engineering Network, and potentially others depending on the nature of the individual test event.
Note, Paragraphs C8.6.1.33, through 6.1.36 refer to the same set of diagrams.
11 C Attachment C8 Facility (C8.6.7.2). Please define the UC Facility referenced in paragraph 6.7.2.
| The UC Facility (also known more recently as the DoDIN Capabilities (DC) Facility) consists of two laboratory areas located in two geographically separate locations. The main laboratory is located at Headquarters, Joint Interoperability Test Command, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. It is identified as the Global Network Test Facility-DC (GNTF-DC) and is located in Building 57305, 1st Floor, Room 156, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The second DODIN APL Test site is a laboratory located at Headquarters, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) at Fort Meade, Maryland. It is identified as the Advanced Technology Testbed (ATT) and currently resides in L2C15 which is the Level 2 Unclassified Lab at FGGM. | |||||
| 11 | C | Attachment C8 | Facility (C8.6.7.5). Please define the UC Facility referenced in paragraph 6.7.5 and its sub-paragraphs. | The UC Facility (also known more recently as the DoDIN Capabilities (DC) Facility) consists of two laboratory areas located in two geographically separate locations. The main laboratory is located at Headquarters, Joint Interoperability Test Command, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. It is identified as the Global Network Test Facility-DC (GNTF-DC) and is located in Building 57305, 1st Floor, Room 156, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The second DODIN APL Test site is a laboratory located at Headquarters, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) at Fort Meade, Maryland. It is identified as the Advanced Technology Testbed (ATT) and currently resides in L2C15 which is the Level 2 Unclassified Lab at FGGM. | |
| B.5.2 | separate for Program manager (indirect) but can bid some time to each TO? | Contract-level program management support costs are included within the fully-burdened labor category rates and encompass support for contract-level management, reporting requirements, and related travel and meeting attendance costs associated with the contractor's program management staff, as it relates to overall management of the JITC TEC Program. As a result, these contract level program management support costs are allocated as an indirect expense and may not be charged directly to any task order. | |||
| Pre-Solicitation Conference Question | What ticketing system is in place today? | BMC Remedy ITSM Suite | |||
| Pre-Solicitation Conference Question | What modules or applications of Remedy are in use, beyond the standard Remedy ITSM module for ticketing? | Asset Management, Contract Management, but only use the ITSM suite currently. | |||
| Pre-Solicitation Conference Question | What specific Remedy instance is being leveraged? The Army standard Remedy instance? | BMC Remedy ITSM Suite (JITC Instance), not related to Army, nor DISA GSD. | |||
| Pre-Solicitation Conference Question | Are any of the supported Fort Huachuca buildings contractor owned/contractor operated? | Yes, two of the buildings at FHU are contractor owned, specifically 57439A & 57439B | |||
| Pre-Solicitation Conference Question | Can you provide some additional details on the on-premises cloud environment? Which platform is in use and what is the maturity of the environment? | JT3 currently operates an unclassified VMWare on premise cloud based around VMWare vCenter/ESXi v7, with vRealize, NSX, and vAutomation at both FHU and FGGM (two separate systems that will be connected in the future for enterprise services). | |||
| Pre-Solicitation Conference Question | IPv6 was mentioned as the highest priority modernization project for the Fort Meade environment. Can you list and rank any other modernization initiatives? | IPv6 is the key near-term modernization effort at FGGM in order to support IPv6 compliance testing on behalf of the DoD CIO IPv6 Program Manager and the DISA IPv6 Program Management Office. In addition, the FGGM Lab has plans to increase network bandwidth from 40G to 400G to improve network connectivity and transport to meet increasing user demand. Across the JITC Campus (including FHU and FGGM) efforts are underway to improve the cyber survivability of the test infrastructure by modernizing cyber scanning and analytic capabilities and improving continuous monitoring and response for cyber threats. Lastly, the FGGM Lab infrastructure will migrate to the JITC Distributed On-Premise Cloud (JDOC mentioned in previous question) to further JITC infrastructure as a service (IaaS) and Infrastructure as Code (IaC) efforts to expand automated testing and testing services. | |||
| Pre-Solicitation Conference Question | Is the Government interested in modernizing to a predominately cloud-based JITC lab environment, as opposed to an on-premises based JITC lab environment? | The JITC Campus (including FHU and FGGM) is working across the spectrum of cloud services including the on premise cloud offering (JDOC mentioned previously). We are currently testing agile software development and DevSecOps (DSO) programs in government and commercial AWS Cloud environments as well as integrating performance test tools and executing pilot development programs in MS Azure environments. The JITC test community, led by the DSO Integrated Product Team (DIPT) is integrated with the DISA Cloud Computing Program Office and the DoD CIO DevSecOps Community of Practice as the department and the agency advance the use and development of cloud-based technologies. | |||
| 6 | Table L1 | Table L1 provides the relevant RFP Paragraph Number for the 50 page Technical Approach (Part C) as “C/PWS”. Section L4.2.1 Technical/Management (pg 13) directs that "In the Technical/Management volume, address the proposed approach to meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical/management subfactor..." Within the PWS, Section C 6 is "Performance Requirements", C6.1 is "T&E Performance Requirements", C6.2 is "T&E Capability Management Requirements", and C6.3 is "T&E Capability Requirements". Please confirm that offerors are to address only PWS sections C6.1 – C6.3 and not the requirements contained in C6.4. | Section L4.2.1 has been updated. A response shall cover all aspects of the solicitation. Evaluation will be against the subfactors stated. | ||
| 6, 7 | Table L1 | Clarification of Task Order Response / Parts E, F, G, and H - Table L1 Part E identifies two Task Orders (DoD Enterprise Test Framework, and Consolidated System Administration Task Order), Part F (RTF T&E, UC T&E), Part G (FBVS), and Part H (DHS). Does the government expect full Task Order Responses for these Task Orders or only proposed technical solutions for the referenced paragraph numbers. If the government expects full Task Order responses - should these be consistent with Task Order response format per C/PWS 6.4.4 Contract and TO Level Documentation which specifies a response consisting of full TO requirements coverage, deliverables, schedules, labor categories and LOE, labor, travel, ODCs, potential OCIs, etc.? | Full task order responses should be provided in accordance with 6.4.4. | ||
| 6 | Table L1 | There is a possible error in Part F. Table L1 Part F calls for "45 pages (15 pages per each of the three menu services)" but then only lists two menu services, RTF T&E and UC T&E. Please clarify. | Table L1 was updated to 30 pages, 15 per menu seervice. | ||
| 11 | L | L.2.3.c - Are offerors to submit one file per volume that includes all parts of that volume or should each part of a volume be an individual file? | One file per volume. | ||
| 13 | L.4.2.2 | Reference Error - The Part Labels (A, B, C, etc.) in this section are out of sync with those as listed in Table L1 on page 6. For example, Table L1 refers to Part C as the Technical Approach while L4.2.2 refers to Part B as the Technical Approach. Please clarify. | Section L4.2.2 has been updated. | ||
| 13 | L4.2.2 | Technical/Management Writing Guidance - L4.2.2 Volume Organization only provides bullet points for each part. Would the government please provide more specific guidance as to the expected content of each Part? (Note Table L1 provides RFP reference numbers but these provide only limited guidance.) | Section L4.2.2 only shows how the volume should be organized. Section M goes into further detail of what should be included for each evaluation subfactor. | ||
| 14 | L | L5.0 Volume III SCRM - In Table L1 Proposal Organization the SCRM Plan is Part F of Volume VI Contract Documentation. Please clarify if the SCRM is to be its own volume or included as Part F of Volume VI. | Table L1 and the Contract Documentation volume have been updated. | ||
| 17 | L | Attachment L2 | May offerors provide the information requested in Attachment L2 in the format of their choosing so long as all of the information provided, in the order it is requested, and in compliance with all font / margin requirements? | Yes, as long as it meets the administrative formating requirements of the solicitation, | |
| 25 | L | L9.0 Volume VII - Contract Documentation - The information requested in Table L1 Proposal Organization for Volume VI Contract Documentation does not match the information requested in L9.0 Volume VII Contract Documentation. Please clarify which is correct. | Table L1 and the Contract Documentation volume have been updated. | ||
| 29 | L9.2.8i | Unresolved Reference - L9.2.8.i references a letter from the OEM and points to section L, Paragraph 7.2.6, but there is no section L7.2.6. Please clarify. | L9.2.8 has been updated to remove the OEM reference. | ||
| 2 | M | M2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors - Volume II, Part C Technical Approach (50 pages) is not included in M2.1. This is the single largest part of the entire proposal but no specific evaluation criteria or subfactor appears to be associated with it. Will the government please provide details on how Part C will be evaluated. | The Technical Approach Section is for the offeror to detail how they will meet the requirements set worth in the solicitation outside of the specific areas mentioned in the evaluation factors. The Government will only evaluate what is listed as evaluation factors/subfactors. | ||
| 2 | M | M2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors - Volume II, Part J Sample Resumes are not included in M2.1. Are sample resumes an evaluated part of the proposal? | Table L1 was updated to reflect where Sample Resumes will go if provided. Sample Resumes are not required but can be provided as part of the technical proposal. | ||
| Page 6 SECTION L | Section L, Table L1, Part C, C/PWS | N/A | Difference between the table on page 6 and the Volume Organization on page 13. | ||
| Table L1 on page 6 has part C as the C/PWS and 50 pages and the Volume Organization on page 13 has Part C as the response to the Subfactor 1. Question: Will the Government clear this up to ensure responders provide the required information in the required outline/format in the correct location(s). | These sections have been updated. | ||||
| Page 2 Attachment C4 | 5.0 Scope | Attachment C4 | For the Performance Area 1.6: DEVSECOPS, should this actually be Performance Area 1.8: DEVSECOPS? | Updated to 1.8. | |
| Page 13, Section L | L.4.2.2 | Section L | Volume Organization for Vol II Tech/Management Volume shows (3) Part C: Response to Subfactor 1 - Program Management. However, Table L1 on page 6 of Section L shows Part C of Volume II as C/PWS, 50 pages. Will the government please clear up this discrepancy? | These sections have been updated. | |
| Page 16 | 9.1 | Attachment C8 | This task order in 9.1. states that there is a one year base period, with up to 9 option periods, to the maximum extent available under the IDIQ period of performance. Are the options periods one year in length? | 9.1 was updated to a 1-year base with four, 1-year options. | |
| 43 | 6.1.8.4 | Will the Government (JITC) provide a library of important referenced T&E documents (Instructions, Policies, Directives, Guidebooks, Regulations) that may not available on the public internet for review and or download? E.g. DoD Cybersecurity Test and Evaluation Guidebook, Version 2.0, 25 April 2018; DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Adaptive Acquisition Framework, 23 January 2020; DoDI 5000.75, Business Systems Requirements and Acquisition, 24 January 2020; DoDI 8330.01, Interoperability of Information Technology (IT), Including National Security Systems (NSS), 11 December 2019; DoDI 8500.01, Cybersecurity, 7 October 2019; DoD DevSecOps Guidebook; DISAI 630-230-19, Cybersecurity; JITC Interoperability Service Area Standard Operating Procedures, Version 1.0, August 2020; JITC Cyber Test and Evaluation Guidebook, Version 1.0, September 2019; JITC DevSecOps Guidebook; Operational Test Agencies Six Core Test Principles, to the OTA Commanders’ memo from DOT&E, 31 May 2019; Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) Memorandum, “Procedures for Operational Test and Evaluation of Cybersecurity in Acquisition Programs,” 3 April 2018. Currently you must have access to the JITC Industry Toolkit (JIT) to download critical JITC T&E documents, E.g. JITC OT&E Guidebook v2.0** (05 October 2017), JITC OT&E Quick Reference Guide** (05 October 2017) and the JITC Interoperability Process Guide, Version 2.0, Change 1 (30 October 2018). | |||
| ** Access to the JITC Industry Toolkit (JIT) is required. | Yes, items will be included in the bidders library on sam.gov. | ||||
| 270 | L | FAR 52.222-46 | Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees - Is a Total Compensation Plan required with the proposal submission? If so, should it be included in the cost/price volume? | Yes, this can be provided as part of Volume VII –Contract Documentation with the other provision/clauses repsonses or as part of the Cost Volume. | |
| 271 | L | FAR 252.215-7009 | Proposal Adequacy Checklist - Is a Proposal Adequacy Checklist required to be submitted with the proposal? If so, should it be included in the cost/price volume? | Yes, this can be provided as part of Volume VII –Contract Documentation with the other provision/clauses repsonses. | |
| 6 | TEC II Section L | Table L1 | Table L1 Proposal Organization - The table provided does not match the instructions. For example, in the table Volume III is listed as Factor 2 - Small Business Participation, however, in the instructions, Volume III is Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) and then the rest of the volumes are off by 1 compared to the table. Would the Government please clarify? | Table L1 has been revised. | |
| Attachment C6 | Consolidated System Administration, Paragraph 4 Objective. “The objective of this task order (TO) is to modify the existing Performance Work Statement (PWS) for JPN 4TB17-1 and exercise Option Year 3 of the TEC Task. It will provide S/A and Support Services (Help/Service Desk) for Testbed Operations day-to-day lab/customer interface for service requests & feedback, technical assistance, and test event coordination and support.” This paragraph appears to be a cut and paste from the DISA TEC Contract Task Order 4TB17-1 and needs to be corrected. | Paragraph 4 has been updated. | |||
| 5 | 10 | Attachment C3 | Period of Performance - The period of performance is stated as one base period and 8 option periods of one year duration, one option period of 6 months duration, and one 6 month extension. However, Attachment L7A Pricing Template only has pricing allowed for a base period, 4 option periods and one 6 month extension. Which period of performance is correct? | C3 PoP section has been updated. | |
| 14 | 9 | Attachment C7 | Period of Performance - The period of performance is stated as one base period and 8 option periods of one year duration, one option period of 6 months duration, and one 6 month extension. However, Attachment L7B Pricing Template only has pricing allowed for a base period, 4 option periods and one 6 month extension. Which period of performance is correct? | C7 PoP section has been updated. | |
| 15 | 9 | Attachment C8 | Period of Performance - The period of performance is stated as one year base period with up to 9 option periods. Attachment L7C Pricing Template only has pricing allowed for a base period, 4 option periods and one 6 month extension. Which period of performance is correct? | C8 PoP section has been updated. | |
| 12 | 10 | Attachment C6 | Period of Performance - The period of performance is stated as one base period and 8 option periods of one year duration, one option period of 6 months duration, and one 6-month extension. Attachment L7E Pricing Template only has pricing allowed for a base period, 4 option periods, and one 6 month extension. Which period of performance is correct? | C6 PoP section has been updated. | |
| 22 | L8.0 | TEC II Section L | Discounting of the ceiling rates is not discussed when pricing the task orders for the proposal response. The only reference is that offerors may propose less than these rates on future task orders. Would the Government consider that discounts off the ceiling rates not be allowed when pricing all task orders for the proposal submission in order to eliminate aggressive bidding strategies for the sole purpose of gaining a lower evaluated total price without risk of executing to that price as most of the task orders are sample responses. | "The additional pricing in these templates shall use the ceiling rates identified in the base contract (Pricing Scenarios) as the rates in the templates" has been added to L8.1. | |
| General | Will the Government provide a list of vendors that attend the DISA TEC II Industry Day Schedule for 12 June 2021? | Yes, a list of vendors will be provided on sam.gov along with the responses to these questions. | |||
| 2 | B3 | Incorporation of Proposed Pricing. Paragraph B3 states that CPFF and FFP billing shall be restricted to the labor categories and fully burdened labor rates. | |||
| Is it the Government’s intent to make the billing rates fixed? | Yes, these will be fixed ceiling rates. | ||||
| 3 | B5.1 | Other Direct Costs. What is meant by, “These EXACT amounts include all markups and burdens allowed by the contract and shall not be adjusted based upon independent decisions regarding actual anticipated costs."? | This means that when a task oder request for proposal is sent, it may include a "plug" number for ODCs. This exact amount should be included in the task order proposal. If additional ODCs are anticipated, it should be identified separately as stated in B5.1 | ||
| 3 | B5.2 | Program Management Support Costs and Other Indirect Costs. The RFP states that indirect costs "shall consist of incurred costs with two or more cost objectives but not identified specifically with any final cost objective." | |||
| May a contractor establish a local overhead pool in the form of a redirected direct cost to capture contract-level program management support costs in which TEC II is the sole beneficial cost objective? | Contract-level program management support costs are included within the fully-burdened labor category rates and encompass support for contract-level management, reporting requirements, and related travel and meeting attendance costs associated with the contractor's program management staff, as it relates to overall management of the JITC TEC Program. As a result, these contract level program management support costs are allocated as an indirect expense and may not be charged directly to any task order. | ||||
| 78 | C1.6.4.4 | Contract and TO Level Documentation/Invoicing. Paragraph 6.4.4 states "invoices shall identify monthly & cumulative: fee, labor rates, labor hours per labor category, names, hours per employee." | |||
| Does the Government expect this to be provided only for CPFF, T&M, and Labor hour TOs only? This requirement would not be applicable to FFP TOs. | C1.6.4.4 has been updated to indicate items to be submitted based on contract (task order) type. | ||||
| 75 | C1.6.4.4 | Contract and TO Level Documentation. Will the government clarify whether the cost for Defense Base Act insurance is an allowable ODC expense when the government requires travel to OCONUS locations as required in TOs issued against the contract? | If the insurance is tied only to the specific task order and does not cover other contracts, than it would be an allowable cost. | ||
| 80 | C1.6.4.5 | Contract Staffing. Paragraph 6.4.5 states that, "If any proposed personnel become unavailable after proposal submission, the Contractor is required to provide a substitute upon award on the same terms and with equal or greater qualifications than the individual originally proposed. If personnel are not readily available, invoices shall be reduced until fully staffed." | |||
| Please confirm this is only a requirement for FFP TOs? | This applies to any task order that has a specific number of FTEs required for it. | ||||
| 85 | C1.6.4.8 | Phase-In. Is it the intent of the Government to use the Phase In Task Order for the life of the JITC TEC II contract to allow for each TO awarded to be phased in? | There will be no phase-in task order. Each task order that is transitioning will have a phase-in/transition task associated with it. | ||
| 85 | C1.6.4.8 | Contract Transition. The PWS provides transition requirements for the contract. There are no instructions or evaluation related to transition. We recommend including a requirement for a draft Transition-In Plan that addresses the Phase-In requirements to ensure no disruption to the JITC mission. The Plan should be included in and evaluated as part of the Management Approach factor. | The offeror's proposal should address all aspects of the requirements in the solicitiation, even if not a specific evaluation factor. | ||
| 101 | C1.8.2 | Negative Incentives added Contract Staffing. Paragraph 8.2 states a decrement when filling vacancies past 30 days; should this be 45 days as mentioned in 6.3.3? |
| Is it correct to assume that this is only applicable to FFP as the Government would not be billed for unfilled positions for a CPFF, T&M, or L/H TO? | 6.3.3 states less than 30 days is the standard with none longer than 45 days. | ||||
| 104 | C1.11.1 | Secruity Clearance. This paragraph states that some personnel will require TS/SCI eligibility. | |||
| Will the government consider annotating which labor categories require a TS/SCI? | This will be identified at the task order level. | ||||
| 2 | C | Attachment C3 | Weekly Activity Report (WAR)/Weekly Status Report (WSR) (C3.6.1.1). The WAR/WSR are referenced in para 6.1.1 and deliverable table. Only the WAR is referenced in Section 7 Performance Standards. | ||
| Recommend deletion of WSR in 6.1.1 as redundant. | Section 7 has been updated to match the other sections. | ||||
| 4 | C | Attachment C3 | Infrastructure Monitoring and Reporting Baselining (C3.6.2.1.9). The referenced monthly report is defined here but not given a title, nor included in a Delivery Schedule table for necessary additional details such as frequency, format and due date. | ||
| Recommend addition of delivery table. | The report has been named and added to the deliverable table. | ||||
| 4 | C | Attachment C3 | Infrastructure Monitoring and Reporting Baselining (C3.6.2.1.9). SubTask 6.2.1.9 appears to be mis-numbered. | ||
| Recommend changing it to 6.2.9. | Subtask has been renumbered. | ||||
| 4 | C | Attachment C3 | Property Accountability (C3.6.2.11). "...sub-hand receipt of all accountable equipment comprising the JDMT development environment" | ||
| Should "JDMT development environment" be "DETF environment"? | Revised to DETF. | ||||
| 14 | C | Attachment C4 | Place of Performance (C4.7.2). Paragraph mentions Alternate Place of Performance and Telework, but does not discuss standard areas such as Weekend/Federal Holiday, Overtime, or Flex Time. | ||
| Recommend adding these requirements. | 7.2 was revised. | ||||
| 10 | C | Attachment C6 | Phase In Periods (C6.6.7.1.2). Phase In Period dates are in the past, i.e February 2021. | ||
| Recommend correcting to appropriate future date to allow for adequate pricing. | 6.7.1 was revised. | ||||
| 2 | C | Attachment C8 | Background (C8.3.3). Background and historical information regarding UC testing is provided in the Bidders Library at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DISA/D4AD/DITCO/HC1028-16-R-0007/listing.html under the filename, “UC APL Services Historical and Background Information” and as provided in Amend 0009 of the TEC RFP. | ||
| Should the reference to Amendment 0009 of the TEC RFP reference in paragraph 3.3 be updated? | 3.3 was revised. | ||||
| 3 | C | Attachment C8 | Multiple Customers (C8.5.4). Paragraph 5.4 alludes to multiple CLINs on this Task Order, with different types of testing provided in paragraph 5.5. This appears to conflict with paragraph 3.2, which defines separate and distinct requriements in this Task Order. | ||
| Will the Government please clarify the requirement? | 5.4 is only stating that funding will come from multiple different customers, and each one will have its own subline item. The specific tasks of the task order are listed under section 6. | ||||
| 150 | G5 g. | Contract Closeout. How will the Government handle closeouts for FFP TO with Cost Reimbursable R CLINs? | CLINs of different types will be handled in the same way the associated contract type is handled as identified in G5. For example a cost CLIN will be handled like a cost type contract will be handled. | ||
| 161 | H11 | Economic Price Adjustment (EPA). Are offerors allowed to bid forecast escalation from the latest HIS Global Insight QCOPWPARNS series if the cumulative index rates exceed the percent changes in Table H1? | H11 has been removed. Escalation rates are provided within the pricing scenario spreadsheets. | ||
| 271 | L | 252.215-7009 | Proposal Adequacy Checklist (Jan 2014). "The offeror shall complete the following checklist, providing location of requested information, or an explanation of why the requested information is not provided. In preparation of the offeror's checklist, offerors may elect to have their prospective subcontractors use the same or similar checklist as appropriate." | ||
| In what volume should the Proposal Adequacy Checklist go? Recommend updating Section L2.2 to inlcude this requirement if applicable. | Yes, this can be provided as part of Volume VII –Contract Documentation with the other provision/clauses repsonses or as part of the Cost Volume. | ||||
| 6 | L2.2 | Proposal Organization (Table L1). In Table L1 - Proposal Organization, there are a number of Parts identified in Column 1 that conflict with the detailed instructions provided in Sections L3 to L9. Will the Government please clarify the requirements in Table L1 so that they are consistent with the instructions in L3 to L9 to ensure all offerors provide the desired proposal submission? A summary of the noted differences is provided below: |
--Table L1 includes volume numbers that are inconsistent with volume numbers in Sections L5.0 to L9.0 (Volumes III through VII) --Table L1, Volume II Parts A through J are inconsistent with L4.2.2 (1) to (10) Parts A through J --Table L1 does not include Volume III SCRM as described in L6.0 --Table L1 Volume III Part D Subcontracting Plan does not correspond to the L6.0 requirements for the Small Business Volume; however, Section L9.2.4 requires Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be included in Volume VII Contracts Requirements --Table L1 Volume IV Factor 3 Past Performance Parts A through G are not consistent with L7.2 Content and Organization of Volume V Past Performance)Parts A through F --Table L1 Volume V Factor 4 Cost Price Parts A through G are not consistent with L8.3 Volume Organization for Volume VI Cost/Price Parts A through F
| --Table LI Volume VI Contract Documentation Parts A through I are not consistent with the instructions in L9.0 for Volume VII Contract Documentation. | Table L1 has been revised. | ||
| 6 | L2.2 | Proposal Organization (Table L1). The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is listed as part of the Factor 2 Small Business Participation Plan Volume in Table L1. There are instructions in L9.2.4 that require the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be provided in Volume VII Contract Documentation. | |
| Will the Government please clarify in which volume the Subcontracting Plan should appear? | Table L1 has been revised. | ||
| 6 | L2.2 | Proposal Organization (Table L1). Will the Government consider including in Table L1 filenames for each of the files to be submitted for Volumes and/or Parts to ensure a degree of uniformity in the |
format of the submissions for evaluation purposes? For example, in Volume I Executive Summary, the file names might be, in accordance with L2.2.2.1 Page Size and Format/File Types and L2.3.c Electronic Offers:
Executive Summary (Company Name).ZIP
Within the ZIP file, include:
_ReadMe File (Company Name).docx _ReadMe File (Company Name).PDF Part A: Proposal Title Page (Company Name).docx Part A: Proposal Title Page (Company Name).PDF Part B: Table of Contents (Company Name).docx Part B: Table of Contents (Company Name).PDF Part C: Narrative Summary (Company Name).docx Part C: Narrative Summary (Company Name).PDF Glossary (Company Name).docx
| Glossary (Company Name).PDF | Offerors are allowed to name there files however they deem appropriate as long as it is easily identifiable what is included in the file and the files are included in the correct volume. | ||
| 6 | L2.2 | Proposal Organization (Table L1). Under Volume II, Technical Management, there is no Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms included. | |
| Will the Government please update the Volume II contents to include the Glossary? | Glossary was added. | ||
| 6 | L2.2 | Proposal Organization (Table L1). Section L2 Table L1, Column 2 (RFP Paragraph Number) references "Section C/PWS" associated with the 50-page Technical Approach Part C. | |
| To ensure some uniformity in submissions for evaluation purposes, will the Government identify which paragraphs of the TEC II Services PWS offerors should address in the Technical Approach Part of its proposal (e.g., Sections 6.1 T&E Performance Requirements, 6.2 T&E Capability Management Requirements, and 6.3 T&E Capability Requirements, and their sub-sections)? | The Technical Approach Section is for the offeror to detail how they will meet the requirements set worth in the solicitation outside of the specific areas mentioned in the evaluation factors. The Government will only evaluate what is listed as evaluation factors/subfactors. | ||
| 6 | L2.2 | Proposal Organization (Table L1). The pages limits for the Technical Volume Part [F] indicate a 45-page limit for the response to Subfactor 3 Menu Services for Standards Compliance Test and Evaluation, with "15 pages per each of the three Menu Services." However there are only two menu services listed in Section M Subfactor 3 (Subfactor 3a RTF T&E and Subfactor 3b UC T&E). | |
| Will the Government please clarify the page limits and menu services for Subfactor 3? | Table L1 has been revised. | ||
| 8 | L2.2.1 | Page Limitations. "Page limitations shall not be circumvented by including inserted text boxes/pop-ups or internet links to additional information; such inclusions are not acceptable and will not be considered part of the proposal." | |
| May offerors use text boxes within the proposal so long as it is not to circumvent page limits? For example, a text box might be included to call out a feature that is further described in the text. | Yes, this is allowable. | ||
| 8 | L2.2.1 | Page Limitations. "Pages shall be single-spaced with 1.5 line spacing." |
(1) Please confirm that offerors should use single spacing for text within its documents.
(2) Please update the Line Spacing requirement to require either Single or 1.5 lines.
| (3) If 1.5 lines, please also confirm that single line spacing is acceptable in tables, charts, graphs, figures, and call-outs. | Updated to single space. | ||
| 9 | L2.2.2.1 | Page Size and Format/Font Size (Reproduced Sections): "Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12- point Ariel, Times New Roman, or Courier New font for all text." |
Will the Government please consider adding the following language to this requirement to clarify that other required documentation besides the solicitation documents are not subject to format rquirements:
| Figures or documents included in the proposal that are not generated by the Offeror or one of its team members (e.g., DCAA Reports, SAM print outs, etc.) are not subject to the font or margin restrictions; however, all documents submitted in the proposal must be reasonably legible." | Updated to state documents from other sources identified in the solicitiation do not have to follow format requirements. | ||
| 9 | L2.2.2.2 | Page Size and Format/Font Size (Tables/Graphics). "For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10-point Ariel, Times New Roman, or Courier New font for all text included in a table." |
(1) Please confirm that if call-out boxes are permitted and used, that they may also be 10-point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font.
| (2) For clarity, we recommend revising the instruction to the following: "Lettering and numbering within tables, charts, graphs, figures, captions, and call-out boxes shall be no smaller than ten (10) point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font." | Callouts may be 10-point. | ||
| 13 | L4.2 | Format and Specific Content (Volume II). The instructions list the contents for Volume II to track to the five subfactors: Subfactor 1 Program Management; Subfactor 2 Test and Evaluation Enabling Capabilities; Subfactor 3 Menu Services for Standards Compliance Test and Evaluation; Subfactor 4 Federal Background Verification Services (FBVS) Sample Task Order; and Subfactor 5 Defense Healthcare System (DHS) Sample Task Order. | |
| This listing does not include Part B Technical Approach. Will the Government please remove the Part B Technical Approach Requirement from L4.2.2.(2), or clarify Volume II contents? | Volume II has been updated. | ||
| 13 | L4.2.1 | Technical/Management. In the Technical/Management volume, offerors should address the proposed approach to requirements of each technical/management subfactor, as well as the risks in the proposed approach in terms of technical/performance, cost, and/or schedule. |
| The Part B Technical Approach section doesn't appear to correspond to a specific technical/management subfactor in Section M. Absent specific instructions for Part B Technical Approach and a corresponding evaluation subfactor, we recommend that the Part B Technical Approach requirement be removed so that the evaluation may focus on the technical/management subfactors listed in Sections M2.2.1, Subfactors1 through 5. | The Technical Approach Section is for the offeror to detail how they will meet the requirements set worth in the solicitation outside of the specific areas mentioned in the evaluation factors. The Government will only evaluate what is listed as evaluation factors/subfactors. | |||
| 13 | L4.2.2.2 | Part B: Technical Approach. There are no specific instructions for Part B Techncial Approach provided in Section L. | ||
| Will the Government provide specific instructions for the offeror's response to Part B Technical Approach within Section L.4? | The Technical Approach Section is for the offeror to detail how they will meet the requirements set worth in the solicitation outside of the specific areas mentioned in the evaluation factors. The Government will only evaluate what is listed as evaluation factors/subfactors. | |||
| 14 | L4.2.2.8 | Part H: Compliance and Cross Reference Matrix. The offeror shall provide a cross reference matrix using their own format to indicate the corresponding proposal paragraph which addresses the TEC Services requirements identified in the TEC II Services PWS and RFP Section M. | ||
| Please confirm that theCompliance and Cross Reference Matrix include the Techncial Volume proposal contents only. | Correct, Technical volume only. | |||
| 14 | L5.0 | SCRM. Section L5.0 refers to Volume III as the SCRM volume, while Table L2 and L9.2.6 include the SCRM Plan as part of Volume VII, Contracts Documentation. | ||
| Will the Government please clarify the proposal organization in Table L1 and the Volume VII instructions? | Volume VII has been updated. | |||
| 14 | L6.0 | Small Business Participation Factor. The instructions in L6.0 appear to address the small business participation/utilization commitment, but not the subcontracting plan. The subcontracting plan is included in the Volume VII instructions in L9.2.4. | ||
| Can the Government please clarify the requirements for the Small Business Utilization Commitment Document and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan listed in Table L1? | Volume VII has been updated. | |||
| 22 | L8.2.2. | Fixed-Fee Ceiling. Does the "proposed fixed-fee" ceiling described in this paragraph refer to the fee PERCENTAGE? | Yes, this refers to the percentage. | |
| 24 | L8.5 | Government Furnished Property/Government Furnished Equipment (GFP/GFE). Paragraph L8.5 describes the requirement to provide information on GFP/GFE, long lead costs, etc. in Volume VI, Cost/Price. There is a similar paragraph in Section L9.2.5 to be included in Volume VII Contract Documentation. | ||
| Can the Government please clarify the instructions to address GFP/GFE both in terms of in which volume it should be addressed (VI, VII, or both) and also in terms of the Contractor's role with the GFP/GFE? | Volume VII has been updated. | |||
| 25 | L9.0 | Volume VII –Contract Documentation. In Section L9.0, the Volume VII Parts do not align with the Parts listed in Section L2.2 Table L1. | ||
| Will the Government please clarify the Part Names for the content, as well as the page limits for Volume VII? | Volume VII has been updated. | |||
| 25 | L9.0.a.f. | Volume VII –Contract Documentation. Parts A-F in L9.0 provide the general outline for Volume VII. This listing does not inlcude the SCRM, which is described in Section L9.2.6. | ||
| Should SCRM have its own Part letter (File?), or is it subordinate to and included within Part C, Other Information? | Volume VII has been updated. | |||
| 25 | L9.1.1 | Solicitation/Contract Form. |
(1) Please confirm that the contents of Part A should include: the SF33/30, Section B, Section F, Section G, Section H, and Section I.
| (2) Please confirm that there are no page limits for Part A in Volume VII. | As stated in L9.1 The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The Offeror's proposal must include a signed copy of the solicitation and completion of Sections A through K. Page limits are stated in table L1. | |||
| 26 | L9.1.2. | Section B-Supplies or Services and Costs/Prices. Per the instructions,Volume VII Contract Documentation should include "Completed pricing information in Section B of the RFP. The Offeror shall provide all pricing in the Cost Proposal Volume in response to the RFP. | ||
| Will the Government please clarify what should be included in Volume VII for Section B if pricing information should only be in the Cost Proposal Volume? | Volume VII has been updated. | |||
| 27 | L9.1.7 | Section K - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors. Please confirm that there are no page limits for Part B: Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors. | Page limits are listed in table L1. | |
| 26 | L9.2 | Other Information Required. Per Table L1, "Other Information" is limited to 3 pages, but in Section L9.2 Other Information Required, there are seven subordinate sections included as part of "Other Information" (L.9 |
(1) Will the Government please update or revise page limits in Table L1, as well as the outline of Other Information required?
| (2) We recommend that The Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if Part of Volume VII Contract Documentation and not Volume IV Small Business Participation), the GFP requirement, and SCRM Plan be separate Parts, similar to the OCCI Plan and Quality Control Plan. | Volume VII has been updated. | ||
| 26 | L9.2.4 | Small Business Subcontracting. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is included as a subset of "Other Information Required" to be provided in Volume VII. |
(1) Will the Government consider excluding the Small Business Subcontracting Plan from any page limits?
(2) Table L1 includes a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Part D) as part of Volume III.
| Can the Government please confirm in which volume offerors should include Small Business Subcontracting Plan? | Revised to only be in part D. | ||
| 27 | L9.2.5 | Table L3 - Required Information for Using GFP. The language states that that "The offeror shall list each exception to the ground rules and assumptions provided in the solicitation and each qualification of the Cost/Price volume, if any, and provide complete rationale for any exceptions." However, Table L1 - Proposal Organization makes no provision for GFP in the Cost Volume. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .