9_Feb_17_Asnwers.pdf

HC1047-17-R-0001

SETI Q10 Feb 17 Part 2

Question # Questions / Comments

RFP

Reference Government Response

The Government states in Appendix 7, Problem Statement Four, that offerors "may" be rated more highly for innovative technologies, processes and methods. Request that the word “may” be changed to "will."

Appendix 7, Problem

Statement 4 "May" will remain in the solicitation.

The Government states an outcome in Appendix 7, Problem Statement 4 that evaluations against the design decisions will be based the end user experience and effects on usability, but given the problem statement's task of creating an end-to-end model, it is not possible to present the end user's experience as a result of that model. Request the Government reconsider the evaluation criteria.

Appendix 7, Problem

Statement 4

The Government acknowledges that in a conceptual problem statement proposal, actualized user experience results are not viable. As such offerors should approach their responses with that assumption and estimate an expected end-result as it relates to the likely end user experience and subsequent expected effects on usability. The statement will stay as written.

It is unclear how the Offeror will provide a detailed schedule without specific timelines but with a specific completion date. Recommend the Government asks for a detailed schedule with specific timelines and a specific completion date to avoid confusion.

Section L.4.2.5.4

The Government is rewriting the problem statements to address this.

Government asks for Risk Management and Change Management narratives under each Problem Statement. But, Risk Management and Change Management approaches generally apply to all of the Offeror's work, so the Offeror will be forced to repeat itself under each Problem Statement.

Recommend moving these requirements from under L.4.2.5.

Section L.4.2.5.5, Section

L.4.2.5.6

Risk Management and Change Management should be problem specific and are required for each problem statement.

For Problem Statement #2 for the Unrestricted Pool, the Offeror needs to develop the required single coordinating artifact that captures the vision, mission, strategy, goals, objectives, governance, planning, development/acquisition, testing, and operational execution that offers decision-support throughout the DISA, DoD, and U.S. Government hierarchy. Besides DoDAF, the Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), and the standards listed in the assumptions for Problem Statement #2 for the Unrestricted Pool in Attachment 7, can the Government please provide any other relevant references and/or actual informal “As Is” artifacts for the current DISA Enterprise Architecture to assist the Offeror in developing the best possible solution?

Problem Statement #2 for the Unrestricted

Pool in Attachment 7

(Problem Statements)

The relevant references provided have been deemed by the Government to be sufficient to develop a proposed solution to the conceptual problem statement. Actual artifacts of the As-Is DISA Enterprise Architecture will not be provided due to policy restrictions.

For Problem Statement #2 for the Unrestricted Pool, should the Offeror develop an Enterprise Architecture for DISA’s internal business systems or for the Operational Support System (OSS) and the DISN external customer enterprise network for providing data, video and voice services?

Problem Statement #2 Attachment 7

The offerors should propose an approach to the problem statement that would theoretically achieve the identified outcomes. Both the internal business systems and the operational support systems are within scope. Knowledge of the exact systems in use is not necessary to propose a plan for how to approach solving the identified problem statement.

Of the innovation targets mentioned (Technology, Process, or Method), how would the government rank / weigh those targets regarding their importance to DISA when evaluating the innovative impact that an Offeror could potentially have in support of the objectives of this procurement tool?

Section L.4.2.3, Technology, Process and Method are of approximately equal importance.

Mobility Engineer 1, 2, and 3; and Satellite Communications Specialist I, II and III. Request the Government confirm that the Skill Levels I, II, and III coincide with the Junior, Mid-Level, and Senior levels identified in Attachment 10.

Attachment 9

Confirmed. Levels 1, 2, and 3 coincide with Junior, Mid-level, and Senior levels identified elsewhere in the solicitation and will be changed in the Attachment 9.

Functional Analyst, Human Factors Engineer, Life-cycle Management Specialist, and Technical Writer. The identified labor categories are included in the table as only Junior and Senior level. Would the Government add Mid- Level to these labor categories within the table to allow for career progression and flexible staffing in execution?

Attachment 9 The Government acknowledges the request, however, will not be adding any additional labor category levels to the final solicitation.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement #1 states, “Leadership has directed a five-year window to go from the initial direction, to perform the action, to fielding the working system.” Is the Government looking for the contractor to develop only the “plans” for a “consolidated personnel management system” or is the Government looking for the contractor to actually develop a consolidated management system to be rolled out within the stated time period?

Attachment 7, Problem

Statement #1.

The Government is seeking a plan of action for a CPMS, which may include a number of planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPB&E) type documentation, but a tangible developed system is not at all expected or required. Problem Statements are conceptual and theoretic in nature, as they represent a typical DISA/DoD related problem/requirement and seek out an offeror's approach and plan to solve the identified problem.

Under Problem Statement 1, if the Government is looking for the contractor to actually develop a consolidated management system, will the Government accept a customized COTS product solution?

Attachment 7, Problem

Statement #1.

Problem Statements are conceptual and theoretic in nature, as they represent a typical DISA/DoD related problem/requirement and seek out an offeror's approach and plan to solve the identified problem.

Will the government consider a hosted COTS solution for the “Consolidated Personnel Management System”?

Attachment 7, Problem

Statement #1.

The offeror can approach the problem statement in any way they feel best solves the given requirement.

Problem Statement #2 defines the desired outcomes. Will the government please confirm that these desired outcomes are part of an overall “Enterprise Architecture Roadmap” that DISA would like the contractor to design, develop, implement, and manage?

Attachment 7, Problem

Statement #2.

The Government will be re-wording the language of Problem Statements #2 & #4 to further articulate the proposal expectations.

Due to the level of depth, complexity and interfaces of Problem Statement 2, does the Government have a notional timeline to have a full-fledged formal Enterprise Architecture?

Attachment 7, Problem

Statement #2.

The Government does not have a notional timeline as to when it expects to have formal Enterprise Architecture. Note that the Problem Statement is conceptual and seeking out how offerors approach solving the high-level requirement. The actual existence of any tangible enterprise architectures is irrelevant, as offerors should begin work under the assumptions given.

Will the government consider allowing offerors in the Restricted Suite to respond to any 2 of the 4 problem statements at their discretion? / Comment:

Problem Statements 3 & 4 are really centered around requirements for offeror’s specializing in Telecommunications which restricts fair competition to Small Business offeror’s in the Restricted Suite not having telecommunications expertise. Small businesses routinely perform work in all four problem statement areas and restricted suite offerors should be allowed to select 2 of any of the 4 in order to maximize competition.

Attachment 7, Restricted pool; L.4.2.5 Tab E

No.

Recommend DISA provide estimated percentage of work to be performed

OCONUS.

The Government estimates less than 20% of the work to be performed OCONUS.

All companies that have Independent Research & Development (IR&D) programs as one of several Innovation investments benefit from (i) customer reviews of proposed IR&D projects; (ii) interim reviews, (iii) final reviews and recommended follow-on work. Question: Would DISA SETI personnel be able to support these reviews if invited by the company?

L.4.2.3.2 Investment in

Innovation

No, because such official representation would involve a great potential for conflicts of interest, preferential treatment, improper official endorsement, improper use of official time, and improper disclosure of non-public information.

The Government has designated a senior level LCAT as 8 or more years of experience. With a critical acquisition as SETI, that requires significant enterprise, IT, Cloud, and Cyber skills, and with the highly competitive nature in various geographic areas for skilled engineering talent, the Government may limit their options for the appropriate skilled workforce for accomplishing the DISA mission by only having a 8+ years as the highest LCAT. Typically, senior level enterprise System Engineers, or Modeling and Simulation Engineers require 15-20 years to acquire the experience to perform more innovative and complex enterprise functions (these are not necessarily SME either). In addition, industry bid rates for 8+ years will lean towards the minimum of 8 years, and will not encompass the necessary advanced experience. We recommend the Government consider the following levels and associated experience: 1) Junior Level, 0-3 years

2) Associate Level, 3-7 years

3) Mid-level, 7-12 years

4) Mid-Associate, 12-18 years

5) Senior Level - 18+

6) SME - years not required This level of granularity will provide the Government, and industry, the options for pursing the necessary talent required to complete the mission requirements.

Attachment-

10 LCAT

Feedback is noted but no changes made.

Problem Statement #2 does not list the tasks to be covered. Is that intentional due to open ended nature of the task? Please clarify intent for task area coverage in response.

attachment 7 Problem statements #2

The Government was intentional in developing an open-ended problem statement without specific task areas. Specificity will be further articulated in the final RFP whereby additional assumptions and expectations are articulated for Problem statements #2 & #4.

201 Problem Statement 3 – is Task 2 intended to be listed twice?

attachment 7

Problem statements #3

Yes, task 2 is identified twice because it covers two different subtasks.

Problem Statement #1: should industry assume the system is intended to process and store PII?

Attachment 7 The offerors should work under the assumption that the system is intended to process and store PII.

Problem Statement #2: The problem statement states, “DISA does not currently possess a single coordinating artifact” but also discusses a proposed approach and implies a process. Recommend the government confirm that an approach/process is what is desired rather than an artifact.

· Request the government clarify what is meant by “waste production” under the efficiency parameters.

Attachment 7

Waste Production has been updated to reflect its original intent of Waste Reduction. Furthermore, the Government confirms that an approach and/or process is desired; which should be developed in correlation to the identified parameters as they relate to DoDAF Capability Views.

Problem statements #3 and #4 appear to be directed at large businesses. These problem statements are very broad, complex, open-ended, and require significant domain expertise and experience to provide an innovative and unique solution. Only small niche firms that offer domain specific solutions can address the requirements listed in these problem statements, however small niche firms may not be able to provide a full spectrum of capabilities desired by DISA. Problem statements #1 and #2, however, appear to be directed at small businesses. A small business can articulate a unique, innovative, and cost-effective solution compared to problem statements #3 and #4. Many small businesses have the proven expertise and experience supporting the implementation of the consolidated personnel management system (Problem Statement #1). Furthermore, many of the enterprise architecture initiatives (Problem statement #2) across DoD, Army, Navy, and USAF are being performed by small businesses. We respectively request the government assign problem statements #1 and #2 to small businesses

Attachment 7, Problem

Statements

The Government acknowledges this feedback and has decided to swap the applicability of Problem Statements #2 & #4. The restricted pool problem statements are notional in nature. They are to be used to allow vendors to address how they would address a task of this type to allow the Government insights into each offeror's ability to meet DISA requirements in numerous and diverse technical areas and problem solving approach methodologies related to broad problems that could be solved by any number of technologies. Offerors should utilize their areas of technical expertise, in their representative class, to solve the framed requirement seeking a technology-unique solution and to solve an open-ended problem seeking an innovative approach.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement 1 does not list Task 4 - Software Systems Design and Development or Task 6 - Systems Test and Evaluation. Is the solution to Problem Statement assumed to be an off-the-shelf product?

Attachment 7

The Government included the following phrase in Problem Statement #1, "Information in the plan shall address but not be limited to". As such, more tasks from the PWS can be utilized by the offerors to fully address the offeror's plan if necessary. It is up to the offeror as to what their approach will be; which can be development, COTS, GOTS, or a hybrid solution.

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 PWS section 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.

C.6.3.1 C.6.3.11

Subtask 11 – Architecture Governance

HC1047-17-

R-0001- Attachment 7

The Government is amending Problem Statements #2 & #4 to frame the offeror's approaches around the DoDAF. With that said, FEA is an architecture;

DoDAF is a framework on how to apply that architecture to DoD. All DoD architectures must comply with the FEA and utilize the DoDAF when developing their architectures.

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 substituting an alternative Problem Statement that better aligns with their stated Innovation Interests? For example, would the Government consider using Problem Statements 3 and 4 for both the restricted and unrestricted pools? Other alternatives that better align with innovative solutions would include Problem Statements that address cyber security.

L.4.2.3 Tab C: Factor 1

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7

The Government has revised the problem statements based on the feedback from the DRAFT RFP as well as which problems are for which pools

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 Architecture relating to Problem Statements #1 and #2, respectively?

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7

The Government will not provide access to a reference library containing the requested documentation.

However, the Government will amend the Problem Statement #2 to provide for enterprise architecture constructs around the DoDAF.

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” This evaluation criteria does not appear to align with DISA “Definition of Innovation” in paragraph L.4.2.3:

(1) any new technology, process, or method, including research and development; or (2) any new application of an existing technology, process, or method. Please clarify the phrases, “previous pilot efforts” and “implemented in real world environments.” Would the Government consider removing this bullet?

M.2.4.2 Evaluation

Section L.4.2.3 is in regards to Factor 1, Innovation.

Section M.2.4.2 is in regards to Factor 2, Past Performance. Those sections are not tied to each other in relation to what is to be provided and how the Government will evaluate the different factors.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1: 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.” 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 cloud computing solutions?

Attachment 7 Problem

Statement 1:

PWS 6.5

The Government included the following phrase in Problem Statement #1, "Information in the plan shall address but not be limited to..." As such, more tasks from the PWS can be utilized by the offerors to fully address the offeror's plan if necessary. It is up to the offeror as to what their approach will be; which can be development, COTS, GOTS, or a hybrid solution.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1: 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.” 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 the personnel management system? This requirement data is essential to engineering a solution that fully satisfies the mission requirements.

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7

– Problem statement 1

The Government will be updating the language under "Problem Statement Narratives" to better articulate the Government's intent and has removed the language related to the inability to further revise their submissions.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1: 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, storage locations, and other details necessary to propose a solution from migrating existing data?

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7

– Problem

Statement 1

Data migration should be addressed by the offerors as a general approach to that task area, but the specifics of pre-existing data should not be necessary as the Government is looking for approach, techniques, methodologies, and management processes associated to this requirement - agnostic of data format, volume, locations, etc..

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1: Could the Government describe the security requirements? Will the system be a completely unclassified effort or integrated across security domains?

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7

The Government will add assumptions for Problem Statement #1 to specify that the system can be planned for deployment on the NIPRNET.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1: Can the Government provide details of system interfaces.

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7

The Government believes that offerors will have unique and individual approaches to how they each discover and deal with system interfaces.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1: 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?

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7

The offerors may address how they will determine network requirements and system accessibility requirements, through discovery, common processes or policies, or by other means. The offerors may also make their own assumptions as to the likely types and form factors for system access, and their applicable unique access controls required for each.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #1: Can the Government provide details on the source systems for any data conversions?

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7

Data migration, and the subsequent conversions if necessary, should be addressed by the offerors as a general approach to that task area, but the specifics of pre-existing data should not be necessary as the Government is looking for approach, techniques, methodologies, and management processes associated to this requirement - agnostic of data format, volume, locations, etc. As such, the exact technical requirements and stakeholder information should not be necessary, as many future SETI task orders may be equally wide in scope and potentially complex without defined requirements.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #2 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?

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7

The proposed approach should articulate the dependencies between planned and existing capabilities; to include, but not limited to any DISA external interfaces that the offerors deem relevant to the scope of their approach.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #2: At a more specific level, 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)?

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7

The Government will rewrite the problem statement broadly to allow for offeror's to determine the possible business process improvements, if any, from an enterprise architecture. As the Government is not providing any existing artifacts related to an Enterprise Architecture, it can be assumed that any approach should provide decision-making support to leadership of the consequences and benefits from making any changes to a proposed enterprise architecture.

PROBLEM STATEMENT #2: What is the goal and use intended for this architecture, (e.g., cost, interoperability, mission effectiveness, etc.)?

HC1047-17-

R-0001-

Attachment 7

The problem statement will be updated to articulate the requirement for the proposed solution to enable decision-making support to leadership, of the consequences and benefits of making any changes to the enterprise architecture.

350 PROBLEM STATEMENT #2 Please define “waste production”?

HC1047-17-

R-0001- Attachment 7

Waste Production will be updated to reflect its original intent of Waste Reduction in the final problem statement that will be issued with the RFP.

The Government asks companies to describe their innovation investments. We ask that the Government not limit the definition of physical investment to physical lab space only, especially in relation to the restricted bidders. We currently leverage cloud technology for “lab space” which is more efficient from both a physical space and monetary investment perspective. Please consider expanding the definition of a “lab” to include virtual models.

L.4.2.3.2 - Investment in

Innovation Added "Virtual" Investments to L.4.2.3.2.

On the FP Labor Rate Build Tab, Columns C through E are asking for the Contractors Internal Labor Category, Years of Experience, and Educational Degree (ex. BS/MS). We ask that the Government please permit any offeror that is a small business and does not have established internal labor categories/families for all the bid categories, to list “N/A” or map directly to the Labor Categories and years of experience within the RFP.

Attachment 9

– Government

Provided Excel

Workbook

Any contractor proposing to the RFP should provide the information requested in accordance with the Solicitation. Internal Labor Categories are only required to be provided if they exist. Offerors need to propose labor rates for each labor category otherwise, the offer may be determined to be incomplete.

describes the scope and the eight Task Areas, and those are all further defined in Para 6. All of the scope of SETI is already encompassed within the ENCORE II (and upcoming ENCORE III) IDIQs as well as in the GSA Alliant (and upcoming Alliant 2) GWACs. Please describe why there is a need for firms to invest in proposing for yet another IDIQ that covers these Task Areas.

If improved Innovation is a requirement, Innovative approaches can be included in the evaluation requirements at the Task Order level for any of these existing or upcoming contract vehicles. Offeror’s view is that Innovation is not a stand-alone requirement in-and-of itself, requiring a different contract vehicle for implementation

Para 5 of the Draft RFP

Offerors should make business decisions as to how they want to spend their resources (i.e. which requirements they want to propose on) just as DISA makes business decisions as to how to execute requirements. Feedback is noted.

In response to the Sample Problems, will the Government allow a complete staffing plan, since a complete staffing picture is not provided if only Key Personnel are addressed?

Attachment Yes. See L.4.2.5.1 & L.4.2.5.2 for additional details.

We suggest deleting the first sentence, ‘The "Original" proposal shall be identified as "Original",’ as "Original" has no meaning for electronic copies.

L.2.4 Distribution and Copies

One CD should be marked as "Original." One should be labeled "Copy 1" and one should be labeled "Copy 2."

Paragraph 3 states that "The Offeror may submit Past Performance Information from a subcontractor but at least two of the references shall be from the Offeror." Please confirm that two past performance references from the members of a JV Offeror meet the requirement for the two references from the Offeror, Per Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Memo, dated 27- Nov-2007 , Per Defense Procurement and Acquisitions Policy: A guide to collection and use of past performance information, Per OMB Best Practices for Collecting and Using Current and Past Performance Information, dated May- 2000, and Per 41 U.S. Code §1126.

L.4.2.4.3 If the JV is the prime offeror past performances from the JV members is acceptable.

"Offerors may include performance recognition documents received within the last three years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition." Please provide guidance in Table L.2.2 as to where the performance recognition documents should be provided.

L.4.2.4.3 Added to table "max 3 pages of performance recognition documents per reference."

Can you provide guidance as to how an Offeror would calculate the percentages of participation by members in a small business joint venture comprised of multiple socioeconomic statuses?

L.5.2.1 Attachment 8

Calculations depend on how each company is set up and which federal designations they are entitled to. If a JV is legally allowed to be categorized as a WO, SDVOB Small Business, credit can be taken in the WO, VO, SDVOB and SB categories.

Would the Government consider deleting item c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform? The complexity and variety of work will be defined at the task order level and therefore the participation cannot be determined at this time.

L.5.2.1 TAB

A: ; Item c

No.

418 Are the problem statements in Attachment 7 final?

Attachment 7

Problem Statements

No, they will be revised in accordance with stakeholder feedback from the Draft RFP.

The draft solicitation states: “No classified information is *required* in any response.” Given the nature of the classified work to be performed under this IDIQ and the nature of an offeror’s past innovation involving classified activities/information, will there be an *optional* classified response submittal.

L.2.2.4 Classified

Information

No classified information may be a part of the proposal submission. Offerors may submit past performance information from contracts that were executed at a TS/SCI level as long as no information in the PPQ is classified. Offerors are cautioned that if information regarding recency or relevance cannot be determined because it's classified in nature, it may impact the rating.

The solicitation says: The *only* characters prior to the “@” shall be “SETI”.

This is a violation of best practices and company naming conventions. Please reconsider this required format.

G9.

ELECTRONI

C

COMMUNIC

ATIONS

No changes have been made.

SF 33 lists carlen.l.capenos.civ@mail.mil but L.2.1.1 indicates disa.meade.PLD.mbx.seti-requirement@mail.mil is the *sole* contact, please correct SF 33 or L.2.1.1

L.2.1.1 Point of Contact

Follow instructions in L.2.1.1

“Contractor shall have access to, generate, and handle classified material *only* at Government facilities” But the DD254 1b has Top Secret and safeguarding refers to the ability to store and/or generate classified materials at the contractor facility. Please correct the DD254 or 12.7.6.

12.7.6 DD254 is being revised

What is the process for a new JV (assume all members have TS FCL) to obtain a FCL. Will DISA upon award issue a DD254, which we may present to DSS for FCL processing?

L.1.1.5

No. All DSS processes remain. After the contract is awarded, it may be used to show that the JV has a contract. DD254s will not be issued until the FCL has been issued by DSS.

Will DISA, upon request, provide a completed/signed solicitation DD254, so the JV may comply with DSS requirements and ensure a Secret FCL is in place a proposal submission.

H3 No. A Draft DD254 will be provided with the solicitation but not a signed one.

425 What are requirements on the evidence? L.2.0.2

If the Offeror is a joint venture competing in the restricted pool, the SBA will need to validate the offeror's size and status if it is not in Dynamic Small Business Search, whether as a HUBZone, 8(a), mentor-protégé, or other small business joint venture. If there are questions as to the validity of a joint venture and the size status, the Government may contact the SBA.

The solicitation says: “In the event that the CD file is corrupted, the Offeror’s proposal will be rejected.” We verify media prior to delivery, but recordable media is fragile.

L.2.3 It is still not the Government's responsibility to ensure CDs are usable or readable or free of errors.

May a copy of the CD be submitted via https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe as a backup, to protect against media damage?

L No.

“The total of Past Performance Information references shall not exceed three.

The Offeror may submit Past Performance Information from a subcontractor but at least two of the references shall be from the Offeror. ” This is very restrictive for HUBZone/8a small business. Can you please allow all the 3 past performances can also come from Teaming Partners (Sub-contractors)?

Section L.4.2.4.3

No.

It is mentioned that “two of the (past performance) references shall be from the Offeror, we have two questions in this regard: 2.1 Can you confirm if past performances under SBA approved mentor-protégé JV (where Offeror is managing partner) are acceptable?

Section L.4.2.4.3

If the mentor-protégé JV is the offeror for this solicitation (entity named in Block 15A), then yes. If not, then the offeror would need to explain the relationship and how this work pertains to the business arrangements for this solicitation.

2.2 Also can you considerer the past performances of the mentor in the SBA approved mentor-protégé JV as valid past performances for the protégé (which is 8a & HubZone) is priming SETI in the HubZone track? (Please note protégé is managing partner in this JV)

Section L.4.2.4.3

That would depend on whether the mentor is a team partner/subcontractor for this solicitation or not and/or whether the work performed by the mentor was executed as part of the JV. Past performance of the mentor outside the mentor-protégé joint venture would not qualify as a reference for the Offeror if the protégé alone is the Offeror rather than the joint venture.

The DRFP contains no corresponding section M evaluation criteria for TAB A.

Perhaps this is an oversight on the part of the Government as this omission is a direct conflict with the technical problem statement requirement. For example, an offeror could check the SME box on multiple Task Areas on Attachment 3, which may or may not correlate to the Task Areas offerors are required to address in the Problem Statements. Suggests the Government tie the input of Attachment 3 to the offerors’ submissions of their Problem Statements for an evaluation of TAB A. We also suggest the Government unbind TAB A from the page restriction of one page and allow offerors as many pages as needed to flesh out the entirely of their qualified inputs for Attachment 3.

L.4.2.1

The information submitted in Volume II, Tab A will not be part of the Section M evaluation factors, but may be considered in making best value trade-off determinations. Per FAR 16.504, the Government needs to be careful to avoid situations in which awardees specialize exclusively in one or a few areas within the statement of work, to avoid the situation where one offeror will likely win all task order in a single task area. Page counts have been updated in relation to Task Area Chart.

Does the Government use the term Offeror to be the Prime offeror, or to represent the entire proposed team, for purposes of responding to TAB C, Innovation?

L.4.2.3 The term Offeror means the entity in Block 15A. For TAB C, responses should be from the Offeror (entity named in Block 15A).

The Government currently requires only three Past Performance citations for TAB D, which will need to cover the entirety of all PWS tasks and sub-tasks.

We request the Government increase the Past Performance requirement to five Past Performance citations, with no less than three from the Prime Offeror. We believe increasing the number of citations required will provide offerors the opportunity to provide substantiated proof of their performance in all PWS areas. Also, currently, the Government has conflicting language regarding Past Performance citations in the DRFP instructions. In L4.2.4.2 the Government states, “Each Offeror shall submit past performance information with its proposal in accordance with the instructions below. This information is required for the Offeror only.” However, within section L.4.2.4.3, the Government states, “The Offeror may submit Past Performance Information from a subcontractor but at least two of the references shall be from the Offeror.” We request the Government please clarify whether Past Performance is entirely from the Offeror, or includes a significant subcontractor.

L.4.2.4 No increase to quantity is made. The reference to "This information is required for the Offeror only" has been removed.

We appreciate the opportunity to feature and award work to small business subcontractors on the SETI ID/IQ. In order to help us finalize our portfolio of Socio-Economic Small Businesses who have strong bona fides across the SETI PWS and within Innovation, while ensuring we have the breath of team to conduct competitive subcontracting, we request the Government issue the Small Business subcontracting goals prior to Industry Day. This will abet us in our efforts to finalize our SETI teaming agreements inclusive of the subcontracting priorities required to meet small business socio-economic goals.

Volume III TAB A Small Business Plan

Goals for subcontracting will be proposed by the Offeror.

Requests the Government include language regarding GFE testing environments versus those the Offeror may have to provide. Please include language regarding Government versus Contractor responsibilities to provide development testing environments versus production testing environments.

Does the Government intend to sponsor NIPR/SIPR/JWICs points of presence on Task Orders to awarded Primes which have Top Secret facility clearances and SCIF ready innovation labs?

PWS Section 6.1.12

Validation Operational

Testing

The specific requirements related to Government and Contractor responsibilities for developmental or production testing environments will be specified at the task order level. Each task order awarded on the SETI ID/IQ will have differing requirements when it comes to testing specifics, and as such, we will not be specifying at the ID/IQ level. Whether or not a Point of Presence is sponsored by the Government will also be determined at the Task Order level.

Corporate certifications are an important indicator of the performance a company is likely to deliver once under contract. Since quality management and performance are important to DISA, we recommend DISA establish a mandatory requirement that SETI offerors hold relevant certifications to qualify as a SETI prime contractor.

Corporate Certifications are also a barrier for non-traditional contractors. Submission of certifications are not mandatory but offerors are encouraged to submit them.

We noted that small business contract holders may propose on any task order, both those set aside and those that are not. We could not find the criteria for small business set aside. Does DISA intend to establish an award value threshold, reserve PWS tasks, use the Rule of Two, or adopt another methodology to determine what work may be set aside for small business task orders? We recommend DISA provide these criteria in the final RFP. Based on our experience as a GSM-ETI prime contractor, we recommend setting individual task order award value thresholds at $10M/year ($100M/10years).

DISA benefits in the following ways by setting such a threshold.

Each Task Order requirement will first be considered for the small business pool. But each requirement will be looked at based on the requirement and no thresholds will be set. Task orders under FAR Part

16.505 are not exempt from the requirements of FAR Part 19.

DISA should also consider the implications of small businesses competing for large business SETI task orders. This may have an unintended consequence of reducing the size of the SETI pool of small business prime contractors, a situation similarly faced under ENCORE II. Small businesses awarded large business SETI task orders are likely to become takeover targets for large businesses. This defeats the purpose of what DISA is trying to accomplish in making SETI small business awards. Small businesses may lead a team of large businesses and serve as a “front” for the team solely to be acquired.

Acknowledged. No changes will be made.

For this Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC)-level solicitation, DISA’s overarching goal should be – evaluate and select a pool of large and small businesses that demonstrate high confidence and low risk in their ability to perform the full scope of requirements set forth in the SETI PWS and Sample Problems. We recommend DISA avoid evaluating price beyond reasonableness since there is no expectation of service delivery at the MATOC level. DISA should reserve competitive price evaluations for task order awards. In evaluating price reasonableness, DISA should request fair and reasonable rates based on market norms. DISA’s focus in this price reasonableness evaluation should be in two areas: 1) burdens (including indirect costs, fee, and escalation) applied to the salary basis; and, 2) salary basis. A company’s burdens (wrap rate) provide insight into the company’s ability to manage internal operating expenses. Companies that manage operating expenses well and keep rate escalation under control typically deliver higher contract performance since sound management of internal operations extends to sound management of contracts. Consider evaluating year-over-year trends of a company’s performance in accurately setting their provisional indirect rates. This is another argument for seeking companies holding industry certifications like ISO 9000 and CMMI. Effectively managed companies will apply burdens within industry norms and accurately set provisional rates. Within the labor category (LCAT) rate build-up, salary basis is the cost driver. We recommend DISA review LCAT salaries based on reliable industry data. For example, we use 2016 Western Management Government Contractors Compensation Survey data to determine the appropriate salary basis for bid labor rates. Western Management provides salary data on 210 current government-contractor labor categories. After mapping SETI LCATs to reliable salary survey data (e.g., Western Management), a reasonable salary basis should fall in the 50th to 90th percentile range. A salary basis below the 50th percentile falls into the task order-discount range. DISA should avoid awarding MATOC labor rate ceilings below the 50th percentile because it will result in task order rates discounted on discounted market rates. This creates high task order-execution risk for the prime contractor and DISA. A reasonable, low risk approach to setting ceiling rates is to set a salary basis in the 50th to 90th percentile based on reliable, market-based, salary survey data. The SETI labor rate ceilings established by this evaluation process will promote higher downstream task order performance. During task order competition, offerors will discount their task order bid rates based on their market-based reasonable ceiling. This will help ensure the rates bid for task order execution are also reasonable. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) recently adopted this price evaluation methodology in their DLA JETS IDIQ solicitation. The price-reasonableness evaluation approach described above has precedence in the DoD.

The Government is acknowledges the feedback but no change will be made.

In the initial FBO notice for this opportunity, the Government notes that ‘SETI is designed to complement the Agency’s ENCORE III contract vehicle.’ If an offeror is awarded contracts on both the ENCORE III contract vehicle, and the SETI contract, does the Government foresee any OCI issues that will the contractor from bidding on opportunities on either contract?

FBO Sources Sought

Announceme nt, June 29, There may be OCCI issues for individual task orders within SETI or under other contracts, such as ENCORE III task orders. Those issues or potential issues will be addressed when they occur by the Ordering Contracting Officer for the instant procurement.

Section L.2.2.2.2 states “Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size.” Please confirm 11 x 17 foldout pages count as one page.

L.2.2.2.2, 11 x 17 fold out pages count as one page. If printed on both sides, it counts as two pages.

Table L.2.2 describes the proposal organization, and states that three soft copies of the proposal are required for submission. Section L.2.3 states “Indicate on each CD the volume number and title and company name.” However, Section L.2.4 states “Three Compact Discs of the entire proposal are required to be submitted.” These instructions contradict each other. 1. Are offerors required to submit one volume per CD? If so, we request the Government revise the instructions and increase the number of CDs to four. 2. Are offerors required to include all volumes on one CD, and submit three copies of the complete proposal on three CDs? If so, please revise the instructions to make it clear that this is the requirement

Table L.2.2, Section L.2.3, L.2.4

Language revised. One CD should be marked as "Original." One should be labeled "Copy 1" and one should be labeled "Copy 2." Each CD should contain the entire proposal. Instructions have been updated.

Section L.4.2.1. TAB A: Task Area Charts/Experience requires offerors to submit the information required in Attachment 3, Task Area Chart/ Experience.

Can offerors leverage their team’s experience to respond to this requirement or is the Government asking for only the Prime offeror’s experience?

Section L.4.2.1

Attachment 3

Attachment 3, Task Area Chart/Experience should be filled out in relation to the entity in Block 15A's experience. On the "would likely propose" section, the Offeror may respond based on the task areas for which it would likely submit a task order proposal, whether or not the Offeror is a Subject Matter Expert or has experience in that area.

Section L.4.2.5.3 states “The Offeror must submit the names and qualifications of Key Project Personnel…. For this submission, Key Personnel are determined by the offeror and shall not exceed five.” a. Is this requirement for a maximum of five key personnel per problem statement narrative, or a maximum of five key personnel for both problem statement narratives? b. Are resumes excluded from the 15-page limit for each problem narrative? c. Is there a page limit for each resume submitted?

Section L.4.2.5.3

Five Key Personnel per Problem Statement. Resumes are excluded. Three page limit per resume.

The Government has provided problem statements in Attachment 7 for which offerors must develop a response narrative in Tab E of Volume II. Are these the problem statements that will appear in the final RFP or will the Government be making major changes to them?

L.4.2.5, Attachment 7

– Problem Statements

Based on Industry feedback, changes are being made.

This includes which Problem Statements are for each pool.

Section L.2.2.1 states “Generally, the following will not be counted: Cover pages, OCCI mitigation plans, consent letters, and commitment letters and glossaries. Pages shall be numbered per volume.” Section L.2.2.6 states “Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume.” However, Section L.2.3 states “Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. The offeror shall submit all volumes in electronic format, using recordable CDs. Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD.” From these instructions, it is unclear if offerors are required to submit all content for each volume as a single file, or if offerors are required to split up each volume into separate files according to Tab, and submit them in separate directories for each volume. a. We recommend separating each volume into individual files for each Tab, and organizing these files in a directory for that volume. This makes it easier to ensure compliance. b. If the Government allows the submission of separate files organized in a directory for each volume, are offerors still required to submit a cover page, table of contents, and glossary of abbreviations and acronyms for each volume?

L.2.2.1, page

L.2.2.6, page

L.2.3, page

The entire proposal shall be included on each CD.

Each Volume shall be contained in a separate folder.

Each Volume shall be further broken down into subfolders.

Section L.4.2.1. states “Offerors should submit the information provided on page 2 in this attachment, for each task area that they identified as “Would expect to propose on Task Orders for this Task Area” and/or “Would you expect to propose on Task Orders for this Task Area if work was OCONUS.”

For example, if the offeror identifies all areas that they would expect to propose on, they should submit 16 separate sheets, one for each task area for Task Areas 1-7 and one each for Task Area 8’s subtasks, 8.1-8.9.” a. Task Areas 1-7 all have subtasks. Are offerors required to submit separate experience sheets for these, or is the requirement only for Task 8? b. The proposal organization table (Table L.2.2) states that the page limit for the experience sheet is a maximum of 8 pages. However, Section L.4.2.1 states that offerors can submit up to 16 separate sheets. Which instructions are correct?

Section L.4.2.1, Attachment 3 Table L.2.2

Corrected to 16 pages.

Please clarify that a small business prime must submit a small business participation plan. If so, please clarify goals beyond the 50% requirement as stated in Limitations On Subcontracting. Reference FAR Clause 52.219-14

Section

L.5.2.1, TAB

A

All Offerors must submit a Small Business Participation Plan. Goals shall be proposed by the Offeror.

Will the Government accept Past Performances from not only the DoD, but other Federal and Civilian entities, the Intelligence Community (IC) and the Veteran's Administration?"

L.4.2.4.3 Yes.

Will the Government consider electronic submission to include compressed files for submission as opposed to CD’s?

L2.3 No.

Would the Government consider making Past Performance (TAB D) a separate Volume versus being contained in technical volume?

L2.2 No.

Are there any requirements for industry certifications (i.e. ISO 27000, ISO 9001, CMMI Level III, etc.)?

No.

Section L.2.0 states, “The proposal acceptance period is specified in paragraph L.3.2.3.