13_Feb_17_Answers.pdf

HC1047-17-R-0001

DRAFT RFP Answers #3 (Final)

Questi on #

Questions / Comments

RFP

Reference Government Response

Innovation requires a collaborative cross-awardee collaborative environment.

Would DISA simplify stand-up of as cross-awardee CRADA for this purpose spanning PWS areas to “have things in the works” before the DODIN-JIE needs are fully manifest – best to be ready beforehand?

L.4.2.3

The Government acknowledges the importance of having a test-bed environment for innovative technologies prior to their production implementation. However, each task order and requirement owner may have a unique test-bed or laboratory environment that is specific to their technology area, so a single environment that is utilized by all SETI task orders is not in the current scope of this contract.

We invested in DISA Enterprise, DODIN and JIE innovation “relevant and beneficial” innovative scenarios independent of SETI or any other procurement. We intend to continue that investment. If awarded, would DISA publish – even if classified – an “up-to-date” Enterprise/DODIN/JIE “evolving future needs/requirements” list and description (no guarantees of funding) so we and all other awardees can innovate for these potential (not guaranteed) needs?

L.4.2.3

TAB C:

FACTOR

1:

INNOVAT

ION

The Government intends to publish and openly discuss all future needs/requirements from DISA/DoD stakeholders to the contract holders during the SETI Program Management Reviews as part of our forecasting and planning efforts.

The statement “…and requests for Special Background Periodic Review (SBPR) will be initiated prior to the 5-year anniversary date of the previous SSBI or SBPR” implies that a contractor can request an update. The NSA, a Fort Meade tenant, has cleared the majority of staff in the Fort Meade area that has the skills, experiences and clearances to work this program. NSA does not accept requests for SSBI or SBPR updates. Recommend rewording to “The SSBI will be maintained current to the granting organizations policies.”

RFP, page 30, Section

12.3 This is DISA's security language and it will stay as written.

The RFP states “SSBI within 5 years is required.” At present, many agencies are not keeping SSBIs w/in 5 years for a number of reasons. Contractors cannot request SSPRs. This requirement will reduce the available staffing pool. Would the government revise this section to allow for a waiver process for the initiation of an SSBI or agree to a longer period of time in order to ensure a there is a robust pool of candidates to staff Task Orders?

RFP, page 30, Section

12.3 This is DISA's security language and it will stay as written.

In section L.4.2.3.2, the Government instructs offerors to provide the following:

1) " Describe if your company has supported Internal Research & Development (IR&D). This should be described by citing the company’s direct commitment, in either yearly financial IR&D dollars spent, or as a percentage of its annual gross revenues." 2) "Describe the company’s physical investment in Laboratory/Testing space. Describe the size, locations and uses of these spaces in detail. Describe other dedicated resources available to the company, their size, location and uses of the resources." Although companies vary in size and investments for innovation, there is significant innovation that is implemented for multiple customers at their expense, typically driven by the mission or outcome desired. Some of this customer paid innovation has significant positive impact and is driven by culture of innovative thinking stimulated by company assets. To encompass a much broader and more relevant innovative experience that supports a like mission, will the Government consider modifying the innovation request to the following: 1) Describe your support to internal, customer, or government funded research and innovation for corresponding programs. What innovation was developed, implemented and realized for internal implementation, or for a specific customer or government agency?

What were the impacts to the programs outcome? 2) Describe your support to the laboratory and testing of specific programs, to include internal programs, commercial or government programs. Describe their size, location and uses of the resources, and the specific outcomes each laboratory / testing environment achieved.

RFP Page, 134, Section L.4.2.3.2

The Government acknowledges that an offeror's innovative achievements may have come from customer paid innovation, that was possible, in large part, due to a corporate and programmatic culture of innovative thinking. These types of achievements can and should be used in an offeror's response to L4.2.3.2 if applicable.

Problem Statement 4 focuses on mobile solutions and design techniques to deliver these types of capabilities. In order to maximize the Government's return on investment, we recommend revising this to be an UNRESTRICTED item.

The industry is rapidly evolving in the area of mobile and the industry innovators in terms of capability, design, cost reduction, and incorporation of analytics are from key large businesses. Given the size/magnitude of mobility within DoD and the significant value available, please seriously consider revising.

attachment 7 Problem statements

#4

Problem Statement #4 of the Draft RFP is being revised and re-assigned to the unrestricted competition pool. Problem Statement #2 will be swapped and re-written for the restricted competition pool.

Corporate Philosophy/Culture on Innovation: “Describe the company’s partnerships/relationships with SETI-relevant innovators that align with PWS task areas? Partnerships can be formal or informal.” Can the Government please clarify what it means by “SETI-relevant innovators.”

L.4.2.3.1 SETI Relevant innovators pertains to innovators within the technical mission area landscape of DISA's mission space. Examples of those Innovation interest areas are listed in L.4.2.3.

The DRFP states, “What does the company’s “architecture” look like and what types of resources are available in the company architecture?” Can the government please expand on what it means by “architecture?” How does it relate to the prior question about Knowledge Management?

L.4.2.3.2

The Government is looking for how an offeror's corporate architecture" aligns with their innovation efforts and their business, engineering, and development strategies. Dividing R&D into decentralized autonomous teams, spawning internal entrepreneurial ventures, setting up corporate venture-capital arms, pursuing external alliances, embracing open innovation and crowdsourcing, collaborating with customers, and implementing rapid prototyping, to name just a few.

For the SETI opportunity, can you estimate what percentage of the work will be Unclass, Secret and TS/SCI ? (Approximately

The Government approximates that of the known SETI requirements, 50% of the work will be at the SECRET level, 25% at the UNCLASS level, and 25% at the TS/SCI level.

SETI Labor Category 8, Cybersecurity Engineer includes multilevel secure (MLS) systems. The PWS does not mention MLS systems. Are MLS systems part of the scope of SETI?

Attachment

Multi-Level Security systems are common among DISA's current IT systems and programs. A typical cybersecurity engineer would have expertise in dealing with systems and components that have multiple levels of security through various I/O interfaces.

We received notification that the deadline DISA's RFI for Defense Mobility Unclassified Capability was extended. We were wondering how that procurement, as well as the procurement for the classified mobility capability, falls in conjunction with DISA SETI's problem statement 4. There appears to be overlap, so please clarify how DISA plans to organize the mobility efforts.

The notional tasks do not necessarily imply correlation to any current or future DISA programs, but are representative of the type of work done by the agency.

With regard to the requirement to provide resumes of key personnel for the problem statements, would the Government consider removing this requirement and allowing offerors to designate which positions in the proposed problem statement organization they would designate as key? If/when the problem statements are awarded, resumes could then be provided for the actual people who are available to perform the work. Requiring resumes at this time will open up the ability for companies “bait and switch” resumes, meaning a company could provide their best employee resumes so they score well, without ever intending those personnel to perform. Requiring resumes at this time for tasks that will not be awarded for at least a year is an invalid measure of the key personnel available and qualified to execute the problem statements 12 plus months from the date of proposal submission.

L2.2 page 128;

L.4.2.5.3

No. Offerors should propose real Key Personnel. When the Problem Statements are issued as Task Orders, if the time between this proposal and the Task Order Proposal is excessive and those Key Personnel are no longer available, Offerors may substitute. But the substitutions will be evaluated based on their resumes at that time.

The RFP indicates that the Task Order Status and Progress Report shall be presented on a monthly basis to the OCO and COR for each task order but accepted by the DISA PCO. Is it the Government's intent that the reports will be provided to the OCO and COR for informational purposes only but that the DISA PCO will provide the formal acceptance for every report?

5B.6 Task Order

Status and Progress Report

The Task Order OCO will formally accept the reports for their task orders. The language has been revised.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1: We assume that the consolidated personnel management system would replace the existing system. Will the Government provide detailed information on the existing personnel management system(s)?

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7 –

Problem Statement

The Government will not provide detailed information on the existing personnel management system. The problem statement is being updated to include a list of assumptions to aid in scoping offerors' responses.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1: As written, there is no sizing or other information that could be used to choose candidate solutions for the Government to compare and equitable score. Please clarify the functional areas and/or full requirements for the system.

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment

Problem Statement #1 is being updated to specify a DISA-only solution and to include a list of assumptions to aid in scoping offerors' responses.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1: This problem statement is extremely wide in scope and potential complexity. Can the Government provide information on all of the stakeholders and the DoD affiliated agencies that will be included in this effort? To develop a solution, will DISA provide a complete set of requirements and listing of systems to be integrated including numbers of expected records and data conversion needs?

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7 –

Problem Statement

Problem Statement #1 is being updated to specify a DISA-only solution and to include a list of assumptions to aid in scoping offerors' responses.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1: Are there software and hardware standards for the consolidated personnel management system?

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment

Problem Statement #1 is being updated to include a list of assumptions to aid in scoping offerors' responses. However, the specific software and hardware deemed appropriate to solve the problem statement requirement is up to the expertise of the offerors.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1: Does the solution include integration layer or can it leverage existing integration capabilities from the customer?

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment

Any personnel management system designed and deployed on a DoD-network will have to integrate with existing authoritative data systems at some level.

Problem Statement #1 is being updated to include a list of assumptions for offerors to appropriately approach the problem.

The Problem Statement provided by the Government in Attachment 7 – Problem Statements provides a high-level description of the problem statements. The evaluation criteria in RFP section M.2.4.2 requires detailed planning, risk mitigation, organizational structure, key personnel skills definitions, a schedule, and change management processes. We have two questions related to this area: Does the Government intend to issue more detailed problem statements matching the evaluation criteria detail in the final RFP? Would the Government consider adding additional problem statements to the solicitation so that prime Offerors can select statements that best aligns to the capability strengths? This is especially important for the restricted track, since small businesses tend to have a small set of capability strengths, but will supplement the capabilities with a team. We recommend the Government provide a greater number of detailed problem statements matching the evaluation criteria detail. For example, the Government could provide a problem set for each solicitation task area and allow bidders to select two for their response. Allowing small business Offerors to have a selection of problem statements (up to 5) to choose from allows for the competitive playing field to be leveled and the Government to see the work of companies across the spectrum of tasks. Some of the topic options we recommend as additions for the restricted competition are IT Service Management (ITSM), DevOps, and biometric integration. Additionally, we recommend the evaluation criteria be more generalized to match the conceptual problem statements. The problem statements should be specific enough to detail the level of narrative required in the problem statement response, per the evaluation criteria.

M.2.4.2 - Problem

Statement Evaluation

The Problem Statements are being re-written to address Industry Feedback.

The Problem Statements assigned to each pool have changed.

Problem Statement 4 does not provide PWS Task Areas, as Problem Statement 3 does. Requests the Government correlate Problem Statement 4 to the PWS Task Areas it considers relevant to the Problem Statement

L.4.2.5 Problem

Statements

Problem Statements #2 and #4 of the Draft RFP are being updated to provide offerors with additional context for providing solutions to the requirements.

Innovation is a distinguishing feature of the SETI DRFP. As DISA points out, “Innovation is more than invention – it is invention turned into practice. And this practice comes with the understanding the Government and private sector will be required to take risks, allow/accept for smart failure, and focus investment in critical areas where the Government is seeking high technical payoffs.” It is not clear what structure DISA intends to establish that will encourage prime contractors to invest in the risk inherent in developing innovative solutions. For example, smart failure may be a failure of the innovative solution to produce the high payoff envisioned, it may be a failure of the prime contractor to deliver the innovative solution due to any number of known or unknown risks, or it may be a failure of the Government to implement the innovative solution. Without a structure in place to encourage and compensate prime contractors to assume the risks of Innovation, it is unlikely DISA will achieve its goal of fostering a creative culture and driving innovation.

We recommend DISA describe how they will award and fund Innovation efforts in the SETI RFP.

The feedback is noted. The requirements and innovation interests under each task order will vary, so incentives to innovate and methods to reduce the cost of risk will be addressed at the task order level, if applicable.

PRICING. Attachment 10 defines 4 labor levels - Jr, Mid, Sr, SME – but the SME level does not appear for any labor family in the pricing spreadsheet. Will this be adjusted in the final RFP or is there no intention to have a SME level for any of the labor families?

Attachment

Attachment

(various)

SME Category has been removed as a labor level.

SITE CLEARANCE Given that many of the tasks require work at the Government site and section L.1.1.5 states: “A Secret Facility Site Clearance is required for those competing in the unrestricted category,” and “Top Secret (TS) Facility Site Clearances may be necessary for specific task orders. Those task orders will be issued a specific DD254 with the TS requirement,” Recommend that the DD254 issued reflect the less restrictive requirements that exist within the text of the RFP: Facility Clearance “Secret” and Safeguarding “None.”

L.1.1.5, DD254

attachment (various)

The DD254 is being revised to reflect SECRET Facility Clearance and SECRET Safeguarding.

The instructions associated with the problem statement conflict with the government effort to encourage companies with specific niche expertise to submit proposals. All offerors should be given the opportunity to choose the problem statements aligned with their capabilities and can demonstrate innovation via relevant past performance examples. We recommend that the government require a minimum of one problem statement submission for the restricted and two submissions for the unrestricted offerors.

Section L.4.2.1 Section L.4.2.5

The Problem Statements are being revised to provide offerors with additional scope and detail on the Government's intent for each. Additionally, Problem Statements #2 & #4 are being swapped between competition pools to better align with Large and Small business respectively. Offerors are required to provide responses to both of the problem statements assigned to their respective competition pool. The Government does not agree that there is a conflict with the intent for niche expertise, because the problem statements allow vendors to address how they would solve problems in numerous and diverse technical areas and use problem solving methodologies related to technical requirements that could be solved by any number of technologies.

Problem Statement #3: The problem statement seems vague and conflicting in places. For example, the problem statement appears to emphasize network monitoring tools and requirements, but then asks industry to define how the multi-node network would be used in the DoD environment and to define the scope and objectives of the technical effort. Recommend the government better define the scope and objectives (the knowns) in order to assess how industry’s approach (the unknown) satisfies that scope and objective instead of having too much undefined. Further, the problem statement states, “The offeror shall describe what new metrics they would propose as being relevant to this requirement,” yet the requirements themselves are left to be defined by industry under the aforementioned “define the scope and objectives of the technical effort.” Recommend this be better defined to allow the government to receive responses that are based on the same requirements instead of allowing industry to define different scope. Other specific observations include: The problem statement states, “optical length wavelengths, electromagnetic spectrum frequencies, satellite communications, or transmission links for undersea communications” all of which are used today, so the difference between the “as is” and “to be” is ambiguous. Furthermore, it states “the additional communications paths.” The problem statement states, “representative applications in use today; to include, but not limited to, classes ranging from infrastructure support, to unified communications, to collaboration, to combat support.” Is this meant to indicate that infrastructure support, unified communications, collaboration, and combat support are the “applications”? If so, specify what falls within each. The problem statement seems to become additionally vague with the reference to “distributed computing models.”

Att 7

The Problem Statements are being revised to further specify the intended outcome, scope, and assumptions for each. The notional tasks are representative of the type of work done by the agency. "Representative applications in use today [or others]" leaves the door open for offerors to utilize their areas of technical expertise, in their representative class, to solve the framed requirement seeking a technology-unique solution.

Can offerors expect the problem statements provided in Attachment 7 to be the ones specified for the final RFP response?

Attachment 7 Problem Statements

Yes. However, the Problem Statements are being revised to further specify the intended outcome, scope, and assumptions for each. Additionally, the problem statements #2 and #4 in the Draft RFP are being swapped between competition pools.

L.4.2.5.1 paragraphs 2 and 3 require detailed narratives and a comprehensive start-to-finish discussion on the significant features of the work. M.2.4.2 states that “To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal Shall demonstrate in depth understanding of the problem and a comprehensive solution that is realistic and achievable in a reasonable timeframe.” However, the Problem Statements are extremely high level which provide little if any actionable information that an Offeror could then use to propose to the level of detail required in the DRFP.

Furthermore, the Section M criteria for a more favorable rating uses undefined and vague terms such as realistic and compatible with existing and emerging standards. The use of such high level Problem Statements and evaluation terms does not establish an objective means for meaningful and responsive proposals and arguably does not establish an objective evaluation method. Question #1:

Will DISA provide any further Problem Statement details? If No, please explain why. question #2: Will DISA more clearly define the boundaries of realistic in terms of time, dollars, outputs required? If No, please explain why? Question #3: Will DISA more clearly define both the existing and emerging standards that are acceptable to DISA? If No, please explain why?

Problem Statements, L.4.2.5.1 and M2.4.2

The Problem Statements are being revised to provide offerors with additional scope and detail on the Government's intent for each. Additionally, Problem Statements #2 & #4 are being swapped between competition pools to better align with Large and Small business respectively. Offerors are required to provide responses to both of the problem statements assigned to their respective competition pool.

Section H – H3. Security Clearances. This section states that a Secret Facility clearance is required for offerors in the unrestricted category. The DD-254 included with the draft states that a Top Secret facility clearance is required (see box 1a. of Attachment 1). Please clarify the level of facility clearance required at submission.

Section H – Section H3.

Security Clearances, The DD254 is being revised to reflect SECRET Facility Clearance and SECRET Safeguarding.

Attachment 7- Problem Statements, Problem Statement #2 please clarify whether the Government is asking for an architecture, a system design, or both in this problem statement.

Attachment 7- Problem Statements, Problem Statement

#2

The Government is amending Problem Statements #2 & #4 to frame the offeror's approaches around the DoDAF. The Government also confirms that an approach and/or process is desired; which should be developed in correlation to the identified parameters as they relate to applicable DoDAF

Capability Views.

G15: “Each contractor in the small business suite is responsible for compliance with the Limitations on Subcontracting clause at the contract level and not necessarily on individual Task Orders.” L.4.2.4.1: “Small businesses are reminded that FAR Clause 52.219-14, “Limitations on Subcontracting” applies to the contract and all task orders.” Question: These two sections appear to contradict each other. In the Restricted Suite, does the Limitation of Subcontracting (FAR Clause 52.219-14) apply at the task order level, or only at the vehicle level? And if at the vehicle level, does the language in G15 (i.e.. no pass throughs at the task order level) govern for the solicitation? Or is it DISA’s intent for the Limitation of Subcontracting to apply to task orders as well as the vehicle overall?

G15 (pg

49) &

L.4.2.4.1 (pg 135)

G15 was incorrect and will be revised accordingly (note this is now G14).

IAW 13 C.F.R. 125.6(e), for orders set aside under a full and open contract with reserve, "the agency will use the period of performance for each order to determine compliance unless the order is competed among small and other-than-small businesses (in which case the subcontracting limitations will not apply)."

L.4.2.5 & M.2.4 Problem Statements. If DISA wishes for small business niche players to prime the SETI vehicle, how do niche players in functional areas other than those functions required for the problem statements respond? The solicitation appears to be written for small commercial OEMs in the two specific functional areas outlined in the restricted suite problem statements (Systems Engineering – specifically communication networks engineering, and mobile systems engineering). Is it DISA’s intent to seek only small commercial product OEMs with innovative products and technologies in these two specific technical domains to bid as prime? Would it be more appropriate to allow offerors to choose two of the four Problem Statements provided, and to evaluate offerors on their approach to the problem statement instead of asking offerors (especially SB prime offerors) to try and solve a complex problem, expending time and resources with no expectation of a return on investment. Innovation can be evaluated on an offerors approach to solving problems (the offerors thought process, the methodology they would use, the teaming partners they might choose to bring in to the solution, etc.) rather than evaluating the actual solution an offeror proposes to a specific problem statement.

The Problem Statements are being revised to provide offerors with additional scope and detail on the Government's intent for each. Additionally, Problem Statements #2 & #4 are being swapped between competition pools to better align with Large and Small business respectively. Offerors are required to provide responses to both of the problem statements assigned to their respective competition pool.

Attachment 7 Problem Statements (Factor 3) – we suggest that DISA allow the offeror to select which problem statements they will address in their proposal as opposed DISA designating the problem statements by restricted and unrestricted. This will provide DISA with more innovative responses that align to the offeror’s core capabilities.

Att 7 No. Problem Statements will be determined in the solicitation.

L.5.2.1 Volume III Small Business Proposal Tab A Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan – It is not typical to require a small business to commit to subcontracting and % of total acquisition value to small businesses. We suggest removing this requirement for small business offerors. As an alternative to encourage small business partnering, we recommend providing higher evaluation points to small businesses that have small business partners as part of their subcontracting plan.

L.5.2.1 This requirement will remain.

If an Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV): 1.) is Past performance from the JV member companies acceptable or does it have to be work that was performed by the JV?; 2.) can "Corporate" approach to innovation be the combined approach of the JV members or does it have to be that of the JV?

L.4.2.4 Past performance references of the individual JV members may be used as past performance for the JV itself, and each member of the JV can use its approach to Innovation in responding to Factor 1.

Will the Government accept a CTA Arrangement executed similarly to the GSA CTA construct whereby the CTA member is essentially a co-prime and the Government can procure directly with vendors for respective products and services as outlined in the CTA?

L.2.0.2 No.

The information provided for Tab E: Factor 3: Problem Statement Narratives can be used for generic solutions, but does not contain enough details to develop and subsequently price viable “technical proposal(s)”. The type, size, and technical issues are not clarified to the extent required to bid qualified Key Personnel. Providing a reasonable Schedule and identifying Risks requires additional information about the current environments, accessibility, and cooperation of DoD component agencies. Paragraph L.4.2.5 Tab E: Factor 3:

Problem Statement Narratives states: “The Government intends to use offerors’ responses to these “Problem Statement Narratives” as technical proposals for future task orders. After award of the basic contracts, contract holders may be asked to price out their proposed solutions to these problem statements without further revision to this submission.”

L.4.2.5.5 The Government recognizes this and has rewritten L.4.2.5.

Paragraph L.4.2.5.5 Risk Management Plan states: “The Offeror shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP) that will show how the Offeror will mitigate uncertainties that include, but are not limited to, unknown conditions, revised mission requirements, innovation risk, schedule risks and cost and time growth as a result of the above.” Will the Government provide more details and provide access to a reference library containing previous DISA studies, analysis, reports, and briefings on personnel management systems and Enterprise Architectures relating to Problem Statements #1 and #2, respectively?

L.4.2.5.5 The Government is rewriting the Problem Statements to address this and similar issues.

Paragraph M.2.4.2 Evaluation states: “Proposing a solution with demonstrable links to previous pilot efforts that demonstrated elements of the technology being implemented in real world environments” Please clarify the phrases, “previous pilot efforts” and “implemented in real world environments”. This evaluation criteria does not appear to align with DISA “Definition of Innovation” in paragraph L.4.2.3 Tab C: Factor 1: Innovation: (1) any new technology, process, or method, including research and development; or 2) any new application of an existing technology, process, or method. Would the Government consider removing this bullet?

M.2.4.2 The Government is rewriting the Problem Statements to address this and similar issues.

Since the Government intends to use the narratives to address future Task Order requirements, will the Government provide additional consolidated functional, performance and interoperability requirements for consolidated personnel management system? This requirement data is essential to engineering a solution that fully satisfies the mission requirements. As written, there is no sizing or other information that could be used to choose candidate solutions for the Government to compare and equitable score. Please clarify the functional areas and/or full requirements for the system. We assume that the consolidated personnel management system would replace existing systems. Will the Government provide detailed information on the existing personnel management system(s)? Can the Government provide information on all of the DoD affiliated agencies, the historical data conversion, estimate on the number of data rows/records to expect, and data retention requirements that will be included in this effort? Are there Software and Hardware standards for the consolidated personnel management system? Could the Government describe the security requirements? Does the solution include integration layer or can it leverage existing integration capabilities from the customer? Can the Government provide details of system interfaces? Can the Government provide details on the source systems for any data conversions? Task Area 5: Systems Integration states: “…develop an integration strategy for incorporating multiple software applications, data repositories, and externally-sourced enterprise services that will eventually be operated on a DISA-owned infrastructure.”

Problem Statement

The Government is rewriting the Problem Statements to address this and similar issues.

Cloud Computing is identified as a primary Innovation Interest in paragraph L.4.2.3 Tab C: Factor 1. As written, the Problem Statement 1 requirement would appear to preclude the use of Cloud based solutions. Additionally, this language is much more restrictive than the PWS language in Section C paragraph 6.5 Systems Integration. Would the Government reconsider the phrase “that will eventually be operated on a DISA-owned infrastructure” to permit use of innovative cloud computing solutions? Does the Government require the offeror to address migration of data from the existing system(s) to the proposed system? If so, will the Government provide detailed information on the existing data formats, data volume and other details necessary to propose a solution from migrating existing data? Can the Government provide details on network capability for migrations as well as system accessibility? What are the details regarding access through multiple types of devices and networks Are there requirements for Single Sign-On? Will this effort be a completely unclassified effort, or does the Government intend on hosting and integrating systems across multiple air-gapped security domains.

Problem Statement

The Government is rewriting the Problem Statements to address this and similar issues.

Is the contractor architecting for DISA systems or does this include all the other DoD systems that “touch” DISA’s (as inferred by the problem statement.)?

What is the scope for including interfaces? More specifically, does “codifies business functions”; mean the Government wants an “as-is” architecture in addition to a “to-be” (inferred by the problem statement as a means to do business process improvement)? What is the goal and use intended for this architecture, (e.g., cost, interoperability, mission effectiveness, etc.)? Paragraph 6.3.11Subtask 11 – Architecture Governance states: “The Contractor shall have an understanding of the DoD and the organization (structure, missions, strategies, governance) and the Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA).” Problem Statement #2 does not address either. Should Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) in Paragraph 6.3.11 be the Defense Architecture Framework (DODAF)? All other sub-paragraphs of section 6.3 refer to DODAF which is the framework used for DOD programs.

Problem Statement

The Government is rewriting the Problem Statements to address this and similar issues.

Problem Statements 1 and 2 do not appear to align with any of the Current Primary Innovation Interests identified in paragraph L.4.2.3 Tab C: Factor 1.

Would the Government consider using Problem Statements #3 and #4 for both the restricted and unrestricted pools?

Problem Statements

The Government has taken into consideration feedback from Industry and is revising the Problem Statements as well as reassigning them between the pools.

Would the Government consider substituting al alternative Problem Statement that better aligns with their stated Innovation Interests such as the following: DISA has a requirement to provide advanced cyber analytics and correlation of millions of events from diverse set of over 1500 network sensors, the DoD Host Based Security Solution that monitors millions of endpoints and a variety of threat intelligence sources. This massive volume of data is currently collected into a consolidated HADOOP repository operated by DISA. DISA requires an innovative solution to provide IP-based cognitive analytics to provide real-time cyber intelligence and incident response to highly adaptive and evasive cyber threats. The solution must leverage the existing HADOOP security data repository and provide cognitive analytics capability with advanced interactive visual analytics, an advanced visualization web dashboard. It must demonstrate the ability to identify threats and attacks that elude more traditional analytics capabilities. The solution must use commercial cognitive intelligence engines that allow natural language verbal and/or typed commands to direct analytics capabilities. Leadership has directed a five-year window to go from the initial direction, to perform the action, to fielding the working system. The offeror will propose an implementation plan that describes their vision of how they will enable DISA to accomplish this task. Information included in their plan shall address, but not be limited to: Task Area 1: Systems Engineering:

Specifically, PWS Paragraph 6.1.9. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate process knowledge, particularly regarding the requirements analysis process. The response should include how the offeror plans for interactions among various functions, from separate DoD component agencies, to achieve a set of consolidated and refined requirements that meets the objective of providing a commercial based cognitive analytics capability on DISA operated infrastructure. The offeror shall demonstrate the ability to analyze non-functional user requirements and translate those user needs into basic functions. Additionally, an offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of the integration requirements to leverage and interoperate with the existing HADOOP repository, event sources and reporting systems. Task Area 3: Systems Architecture: Specifically, PWS paragraphs 6.3.4, 6.3.5, & 6.3.14. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the ability to identify, assess, and select innovative solutions to be utilized versus competing requirements for new systems to be developed. The proposal must demonstrate how they will collect and organize architecture data required for system development through system modeling and documentation techniques that support capability and service mapping. Task Area 5: Systems Integration:

Specifically, PWS Paragraphs 6.5.1 and 6.5.2. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the ability to define objectives, develop criteria mapping proposed system features to requirements, and to develop an integration strategy for incorporating multiple software applications, data repositories, and externally sourced enterprise services that will eventually be operated on a DISA-owned infrastructure. The proposal must include information on how they will ensure consistency and traceability between the system design and the integrated system elements. Task Area 7: Systems Deployment and Life-cycle Engineering: Specifically, PWS paragraph

6.7.2. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate how they will be using systems engineering processes, and design maturation processes, within the Defense Life-Cycle Management system to ensure critical activities are accounted for prior to Milestone C. The proposal must demonstrate a comprehension of key phase activities in the areas of requirements development, systems engineering, test & evaluation, and logistics/sustainment.

The feedback is noted. The Problem Statements are being revised.

In the past performance validation for SETI, can you please consider projects going back to (up to) 5 years. There is lot of precedents for this (e.g.. Recent ALLIANT SB on-ramp that had this and we submitted the proposal on this using past performances going back 5 years. This would be a tremendous feature especially for small businesses.

No changes made.

During an AFCEA event on January 12th, it was stated by DISA Leadership that the SETI RFP may be out as early Feb/March, the industry day was not going to take place, and a Post-RFP Event would replace the industry day. The statements made at the AFCEA event are materially different than what is posted on FBO. Can you confirm the information posted on FBO is accurate? If the information on FBO is accurate or if the FBO information needs to be changed when will the government provide public clarification on acquisition timeline and industry day?

NA FBO has been updated with the latest information regarding this solicitation

Would DISA consider removing the phrase, "The contractor shall be excluded from any and all follow-on work related to all programmatic/portfolio data from this contract." from the PWS? This sentence is ambiguous when considered at the IDIQ level. The sentence that follows and the DARS compliance requirement adequately address OCI constraints for related task orders where requirements are generated for future orders. If DISA chooses to allow the statement to remain, would DISA provide some clarification to identify the conditions where a company is precluded from bidding on its logical follow-on task orders or future IDIQ vehicles? Alternately, will the Government consider addressing the issue of exclusion/limitation on future contracting at the task order level, where industry can better vet opportunities against future contracting risks?

Section C

(PWS),

para 14(b) Yes. Removed.

In the document “HC1047-17-R-0001_-_Att_3_-_Task_Area_Chart- Experience_-_RFP.doc” On page 1, there are two columns, Titled as follow:

“Offeror considers themselves Subject Matter Expert” “Offeror considers themselves Experienced” Is it possible to modify these Titles as: “Offeror by itself or as a Team considers themselves Subject Matter Expert” “Offeror by itself or as a Team considers themselves Experienced”

Att 3 No.

Also on page 2 of the Att 3 document (file name: “HC1047-17-R-0001_- _Att_3_-_Task_Area_Chart-Experience_-_RFP.doc”) Can you please change the verbiage from “why offeror considers themselves a Subject Matter Expert” to “why offeror considers themselves or as a Team considers as Subject Matter Expert" ?

Att 3 No.

Will companies be OCI'd from hardware/software sales to DISA if awarded this contract?

RFP

OCI determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis for individual software/hardware procurements and cannot be determined at the ID/IQ level.

The government states similar efforts are described in excess of $3 million for the restricted category. Will the government consider lowering the past performance requirement to $1.5 million per past performance (Prime past performance—also performed 100% of the contract as a prime—no subcontractors)? Or is the dollar amount of the 3 past performances summed as a whole? Also will the government consider adding certifications such as ISO:9001:2008 or CMMI Level 2 for services requirement to the restricted category?

PP

No the Government will not lower the dollar thresholds. Offerors are reminded that they can explain why a reference is similar. No, the references are not totaled. No the Government will not add certifications as requirements.

Offerors may submit those in Factor 1 however.

Offerors should provide the information provided on the first page in this attachment to identify which task areas they consider themselves to be subject matter experts, those they consider themselves experienced in and those areas where they anticipate they would propose on task orders that utilize that task area. Q: When responding to this chart, please confirm the offeror can reference the experience of their entire team.

L.4.2.1.

TAB A:

Task Area Charts/Exp erience

Only the entity listed in Block 15A will be recognized as the Offeror.

Attachment 3, Task Area Chart/Experience should be filled out in relation to the Offeror's experience. On the "Would likely propose" section, the Offeror may respond based on the tasks for which they are likely to propose, even if they are not a Subject Matter Expert or have experience on it. In these cases, the Government will assume that a team member with adequate experience and expertise will be utilized when proposing.

Provide signed Teaming Agreements as necessary. Q: Does the government expect the offeror to supply all signed teaming agreements?

L.4.2.2.

TAB B:

Partnership , Joint

Venture or Teaming

Agreement (s)/Arrange ments

Yes.

Describe how the company’s core competency of innovation significantly aligns with DISA’s mission needs and requirements. Q: Can the offeror include innovative information from subcontractors in this section or is this a prime only discussion?

L.4.2.3

TAB C:

FACTOR

1:

INNOVAT

ION

Prime only.

Physical Investment/Dedicated Resources. Describe the company’s physical investment in Laboratory/Testing space. Q: Can the description include information on subcontractors physical investment in Laboratory/Testing space?

4.2.3.2 Investment

in Innovation

No.

693 Q. Can the offeror include information from subcontractors?

L.4.2.3.4 Outreach and Participatio n

No.

694 Q. Can the offeror include information from the subcontractors?

L.4.2.3.5 Certificatio ns, Accreditati ons, Awards, Achieveme nts, Patents

No.

In L.4.2.4.1 General – the government references the following: This information is required for the Offeror only. Yet in L.4.2.4.3 Past Performance Questionnaires for Recent and Relevant Contracts --The Offeror may submit Past Performance Information from a subcontractor but at least two of the references shall be from the Offeror. Q. Is the offeror allowed to use Past Performance from subcontractors?

L.4.2.4

TAB D

Factor 2:

Past

Performanc e

L.4.2.4.1 has been revised to remove the statement "This information is required for the Offeror only."

The outline (L.2.2, page 128) states that the page limit for the Task Area Chart/Experience is a maximum of 8 pages for experience (one page per task area). The instructions on page 132 state that “if the offeror identifies all areas that they would expect to propose on, they should submit 16 separate sheets” (two pages per task area). Which is correct – what is the total page count for Task Area Chart/Experience, eight pages or 16 pages?

Section L, L.4.2.1, Tab A page

The page count has been corrected to max of 16.

In reference to similar projects, the RFP states that “Efforts in excess of $3M for restricted category or in excess of $15M for unrestricted category (if less than these threshold, justify relevancy to SETI) Are these dollar amounts for total contract value or yearly revenue?

Section L, L.4.2.4.3, Contract Value.

The SETI contract vehicle objective as “to provide quality engineering, and technical support, services, and products globally under a multiple award ID/IQ task order contract for DoD, DISA, and DISA mission partners.” The Innovation requires an extensive discussion on the internal investment for IR&D and places evaluation value (favorable rating/higher ratings) on responses with “evidence of sustained, year‐after‐year investment in technologies and innovative ways to develop new capability, improve service, reduce costs and create efficiencies.” The Section L and M language seems to indicate a preference for companies with large IR&D investments typically used for product or capability development rather than companies that have developed expertise and processes in helping their customers innovate. It is our experience that companies investing in IR&D and building products that focus more on solving a particular need and selling a product or capability that addresses that need are not equipped / skilled at / qualified to advise, in an unbiased manner, other organizations on how to innovate or infuse new technologies into a new enterprise, etc. How will DISA distinguish the favorable/higher ratings between companies with evidence of sustained, year‐after‐year investment in product solutions and those that do not, but can and are more qualified to provide support and services which allow DISA, DoD, and DISA mission partners to innovate?

Section C, pg 11, Section L, pg 134, Section M, pg 145

Section M describes the evaluation process.

The SETI contract vehicle objective as “to provide quality engineering, and technical support, services, and products globally under a multiple award ID/IQ task order contract for DoD, DISA, and DISA mission partners.” The Innovation factor requires an extensive discussion on the internal investment for IR&D and places evaluation value (favorable rating/higher ratings) on responses with “evidence of sustained, year‐after‐year investment in technologies and innovative ways to develop new capability, improve service, reduce costs and create efficiencies.” The Section L and M language seems to indicate a preference for companies that publish and apply for/hold patents, typically product or capability companies rather than companies that have developed expertise and processes in helping their customers innovate. How will DISA distinguish the favorable/higher ratings between companies that publish and apply for/hold patents to those that do not, but can and are more qualified to provide support and services which allow DISA, DoD, and DISA mission partners to innovate?

Section C, pg 11, Section L, pg 135, Section M, pg 145

Section M describes the evaluation process.

In light of DISA’s intention to reserve one of the 20 anticipated restricted contracts to a HUBZone, what, if any, credit is being given for awards to companies with the 8(a) Small Business designation?

Section L, L.1.1.2, None.

Paragraph B.7 of the RFP refers to the DSSR but does not mention compliance with Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). Can the Government confirm the JTR shall also apply to overseas travel and/or deployments?

B7 Work

OCONUS

Details of OCONUS travel and/or deployments will be specified in individual task orders.

5B. Overall Contract and Task Order Management Should this be numbered 5A?

5B This section has been moved and is now 6.9.1.

Does the Government intend to include a separate CLIN to accommodate time-and-materials type task orders?

Section B Yes. This has been corrected.

Attachment 10 Labor Category Descriptions identifies knowledge/skill levels of Junior, Mid-Level, and Senior. However, Attachment 9 Government Provided Excel Workbook includes the following labor categories with alternate levels:50 Mobility Engineer – 51 Mobility Engineer, 52 Mobility, Engineer, 68 Satellite Communications Specialist I, 69 Satellite Communications Specialist II, 70 Satellite Communications Specialist III.