HC1047-17-R-0001-_Amdendment_3.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of the Amendment is to answ er the next set of questions. Attachments 7 and 9 (Removes Education and Experience Tabs and

Changed Titles of "Years") are revised. See Summary of Changes for other revisions. All revisions are highlighted.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Mar-2017

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X HC1047-17-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Feb-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

15-Mar-2017

CODE

DISA/CONTRACTS-NCR

6914 COOPER AVE

FORT MEADE MD 20755-7090

HC1047 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HC1047-17-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

Q&A SET 3

Q# Questions / Comments Government Response RFP Sort Reference

Please clarify what is meant by the statement "Include rate summary for Option Years" under the description for TAB A.

Is this requirement met by completing Attachment 9 in accordance with the instructions, or is there an additional requirement outside of this?

The requirement is met by completing attachment 9 in accordance with the instructions.

6.0 Volume

IV –

FACTOR 5

Cost/Price Proposal Section L.6.1

Instruction #2 states that any alteration to the workbook outside of the "FP Labor Rate Build" tabs may be considered tampering and may result in the Offeror's proposal not eligible for award. However, instruction #5 states to complete the escalation rate proposed for each period of performance on line 3, columns E through V in the tab labeled "FP Labor Rate Table". Please confirm that the Offeror is to alter the "FP Labor Rate Table" in providing the proposed escalation rates.

Confirmed. The Offeror is allowed to alter the "FP Labor Rate Table" in providing the proposed escalation rates.

Attachment

Instructions tab

If a Joint Venture is awarded a contract, and should any member request or forced to be removed from the Joint Venture after IDIQ award, will the Government request prior consent to add new members to the Joint Venture?

A joint venture may not add new members after contract award, but may subcontract to other firms consistent with the terms and conditions of the contract, relevant task order, and any applicable regulations. If a joint venture is awarded a contract in either the unrestricted or the restricted pool, the departure of any member will result in the joint venture being placed into dormant status because the contract will have been awarded on the basis of the combined attributes of all the joint venture members.

If it is determined through re-certification by the Government, or merger or acquisition, that a member of the Joint Venture has graduated from the small business concern to other than small at any time during IDIQ contract award, will the Government allow that member of the Joint Venture to remove itself from the Joint Venture so that the other members of the Joint Venture can keep the contract award and Joint Venture in place?

No. If a joint venture is awarded a contract in either the unrestricted or the restricted pool, the departure of any member will result in the joint venture being placed into dormant status because the contract will have been awarded on the basis of the combined attributes of the joint venture members. If a contract is awarded to a joint venture in the restricted pool, 13 C.F.R.

Section 121.404(g)(2)(ii)(C) requires recertification of size status when an acquired concern, acquiring concern, or merged concern is a participant in a joint venture that has been awarded a contract or order as a small business. If the protégé of any mentor-protégé joint venture in the restricted pool no longer qualifies as a small business due to a merger, acquisition, or other change in ownership or affiliation, the joint venture will be placed into dormant status, and each member will continue to be individually responsible for performance of any previously awarded task orders. In a joint venture consisting of only small businesses, if any member no longer qualifies as a small business due to a merger, acquisition, or other change in ownership or affiliation, the joint venture will be placed into dormant status, and each member will continue to be individually responsible for performance of any previously awarded task orders.

If it is determined that the Managing Member (Prime) of the Joint Venture (the Prime shall be responsible for managing the JV, invoicing, etc.) has graduated to other than small at any time after IDIQ award, can the Managing Member maintain its place on the Joint Venture to manage the contract as the Prime without bidding on new Task Orders with other members of the Joint Venture who would be qualified to continue bidding as a small business concern under the Joint Venture?

No. If a joint venture is awarded a SETI contract, the joint venture itself is the prime contractor. Individual members of the joint venture cannot propose on task orders separate from any other member, including the managing member.

The RFP states that the EEO "information is only required for the Prime Offeror. Indicate whether the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has conducted an evaluation and found the prospective Contractor to be in compliance with Executive Order 11246, and if so, provide the date of that determination." If the offeror is a JV, and if the members of the JV are in compliance with EO 11246, can the JV provide the date of determination for each member of the JV, will that suffice?

If the offeror is a joint venture, it will be sufficient if each member states that the OFCCP has conducted an evaluation and found it compliant with EO 11246 with the date of that determination.

Sec L.3.2.7 Tab G

In reference to FAR 52.22-56, Certification Regarding Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan, given that the location of the services and the need to implement a compliance plan will be determined at the task order level, should the certification be provided at the task order level versus the IDIQ proposal?

If plans are required, they will be submitted at the Task Order Level. No plan is required with the IDIQ.

Section K

Section L.4.2.3.3 requires the following regarding an offeror’s History of Engineering and Deploying Innovative Solutions (bolding has been added for emphasis): “Describe your track record of developing solutions and successfully sustaining the solutions from infancy to full maturity. It is desirable for the projects/programs/solutions to map to one of the SETI Task Areas. Expressly list these. Show proof of implementation on a live program, to include quantitative and qualitative measured benefits.” a) Can the Government please indicate what specific types of "proof" (e.g. objective evidence, as expanded upon in Item b) will be acceptable?

b) Unlike typical instructions from the Government requiring offerors to “describe”, “provide a description of”, “demonstrate” (or other similar terms) an approach, which places responsibility on the offeror to determine how to best respond, the Government’s use of the term “show proof” implies the inclusion (in the proposal) of objective evidence, or documentation/information from an authoritative source, that can be independently verified. Such objective evidence, documentation, and/or information from an authoritative source may not be readily available within the timeframe allotted for this proposal response (24 March 2017), or may not be available in a format that can be easily integrated into a proposal. This is especially true for innovations that have been implemented exclusively for Government programs, with the objective evidence (including format) controlled entirely by the Government. As such, we recommend that the Government use the words “Provide a description of the solutions’ implementation on a live program, …” versus “Show proof of implementation on a live program, …” to allow more flexibility for offerors to respond to the Section L.4.2.3.3 requirement, and to do so within the time constraints of this solicitation.

To show proof can, in this context, also mean "to demonstrate." a. Proof can take many forms including a press release announcing the deployment, a CPARS rating describing the deployment, letters from the owners, etc. b. No changes will be made. The offeror must demonstrate this element vice simply describe it.

L.4.2.3.3, second bullet

L.5.2.1 Tab A, Factor 4. It a. states: " The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals". Would the Government please confirm that “proposals” in the phrase "identified in proposals" refers to the Volume III Small Business Proposal, Tabs A and Tab B.

The "proposal" in the context of this question means the Small Business Proposal.

L.5.2.1

TAB A:

FACTOR 4

In section L.4.2.3 the paragraph refers to "autonomous computing" as a primary innovation interest. Please clarify, does the Government mean autonomic computing?

Autonomous is a related term of autonomic.

As adjectives the difference between autonomous and autonomic is that autonomous is self-governing intelligent, sentient, self-aware, thinking, feeling, governing independently while autonomic is acting or occurring involuntarily, without conscious control.

L.4.2.3

The “FP Labor Rate Table” tab in the Government Provided Excel Workbook seems to define the Contract Periods as Calendar Years 2018-2027 (Row 4). Does the Government anticipate putting rates on contract on a calendar year basis or in accordance with the contract POP whereby the Base Period would be 3/1/18-2/28/19? If the latter, will the Government allow the Offeror to amend the template to reflect the appropriate POP dates according to the contract year?

In accordance with the contract POP. Each "labor year" will based on the date of contract award's period of performance start date. For pricing purposes, each year identified on the Attachment 9 Excel Workbook will be interpreted as beginning on March 1 and extending through the end of February the following calendar year.

Attachment

In the Pricing Instructions the Government provided in the Excel workbook, it states that ‘any alteration to the workbook outside of the “FP Labor Rate Build” tabs may be considered tampering.....”. In order to provide accurate formulas and show all indirect costs, it may be necessary to show additional calculations (i.e. Offeror FY to Contract FY conversion) in order to tie to the Indirect rates shown on line 5. Is it acceptable to show these additional calculations at the bottom of the “FP Labor Rate Build” tabs or would the Government prefer to add an additional tab to enable Offerors to show all necessary calculations?

The indirect rates in sorted in line 5 of the "FP Labor Rate Build" tabs shall be the total/final indirect rate proposed if offerors need to blend rates between two different contractor fiscal years. Offerors may show how the blended calculations were done below the tables starting on row 110 and shall explain its calculations in its cost narrative in TAB B.

Attachment

In the Pricing Instructions the Government provided in the Excel workbook, it states that ‘any alteration to the workbook outside of the “FP Labor Rate Build” tabs may be considered tampering.....”. In order to provide an accurate buildup, it may be necessary to rename and/or include additional columns. On the “FP Labor Rate Build” tabs, is it acceptable for the Offeror to rename and/or include additional columns into the rate buildup in order to accurately represent how the rates are developed? Please advise.

Offerors may insert additional columns in the "FP Labor Rate Build" tabs as needed for additional indirect rate/FCCM categories and label each indirect and FCCM category.

Attachment

For Past Performance, Section L defines relevance of programs to SETI as "Efforts in excess of $3M for restricted category or in excess of $15M for unrestricted category (if less than these thresholds, justify relevancy to SETI)." Please verify that the $3M and $15M thresholds reflect total contract value.

The dollar values reflect the total contract value but the offeror must identify what the dollar value of the work that was executed by the company submitting the reference.

RFP

Section L, L.4.2.4.3, Volume III, TAB A, notes that the Government will evaluate the "extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones). Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments, i.e. mentor protégés, joint ventures, subcontracting or partnership letters of commitment(s), etc., to utilize any Small Business category, as defined in FAR Part 19, as subcontractors. Each enforceable commitment must be specific to the subject requirement and include acknowledgement via signatures by both parties. Duly authorized and fully executed documentation validating the subject business relationships must be submitted." The offeror is already providing all Partnership, Joint Venture, and Teaming Agreements in response to requirements in Volume II, Tab B. Please verify that placing Partnership, Joint Venture, and Teaming Agreements in one location on the CD and referring evaluators to that one location will satisfy all requirements for including these agreements.

If using the agreements for evaluation in Vol III, the agreements need to be included in Vol III as well. Each Factor and the information provided for each factor is send separately to the evaluation teams.

RFP

Section L, L.5.2.1, PWS 6.7.2 states: "Design, produce and deploy the equipment and its support system". Please clarify if the Government want to see how the contractor would produce and deploy equipment, or simply have the contractor describe consideration for producing and deploying equipment?

The offeror’s plan must demonstrate, at a high-level, 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 at each critical milestone, phase, and decision point, up 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.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

1, Task Area 7, PWS 6.7.2.

PWS 6.7.2 states: "Execute M&S activities to assess alternatives for major decisions affecting the design and deployment of both the end item and its support system". Does the Government want the contractor to perform M&S as part of this Problem Statement, or does the government want the contractor to describe how they would do M&S during implementation of the personnel management system, or does the Government want the contractor to describe how M&S should be conducted during implementation, potentially by another contractor?

The offeror’s plan must demonstrate, at a high-level, 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 at each critical milestone, phase, and decision point, up 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.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

1, Task Area 7, PWS 6.7.2.

Task Area 7 States: "Systems Deployment and Life-cycle Engineering Specifically, PWS paragraph 6.7.2. The offeror’s plan must demonstrate, at a high-level, 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 at each critical milestone, phase, and decision point, up 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."

Please clarify if Government desires to see the contractors processes for implementing each of these phases rolling out the personnel management system, or does the Government just want to see the contractor specify how to account for each phases occurring? For example, does the Government want to see how the contractor would develop the system, or does the Government want a description of how to account that the system is developed properly, potentially by another contractor?

The level of detail is up to the offeror. At a minimum, the offeror’s plan must demonstrate, at a high-level, 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 at each critical milestone, phase, and decision point, up 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.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

1, Task Area 7.

Please define or reference documentation that defines DISA’s mission needs and requirements in terms of the SETI contract goals.

The SETI PWS and RFP provide sufficient detail into DISA's mission needs and SETI's objectives for the proposal submission.

RFP,

Section

L.4.2.3.1

Please clarify whether the Government wants the contractor to provide our Risk Management Plan for implementation of a Personnel Management System or our Risk Management Plan for developing the plan to enable the Government to make a Concept Determination.

The Risk Management Plan should cover, at a minimum, the offeror's approach to risk management during the planning phase of a project. The specific level of detail for whether that also covers high-level information about risk management through the implementation phase, is up to the offeror.

RFP,

Section

L.4.2.5.4 Risk

Manageme nt Plan:

Please clarify whether the Government wants the contractor to provide our Change Management Process for implementation of a Personnel Management System or our Change Management Process for developing the plan to enable the Government to make a Concept Determination.

The Change Management Plan should cover, at a minimum, the offeror's approach to change management during the planning phase of a project. The specific level of detail for whether that also covers high-level information about change management through the implementation phase, is up to the offeror.

RFP,

Section

L.4.2.5.5 Change

Manageme nt Process.

In Problem Statement #3, reference is made to Task Area 1:

Systems Engineering, Subtask 2 - Design Analysis. In PWS

6.1.1 on page 13 of the RFP, Task Area 1, Subtask 2 is referred to as Decision Analysis. Can the Government clarify that in Attachment 7, Task Area 1, Subtask 2 should refer to "Decision Analysis"?

This is correct. The reference related to Attachment 7, Task Area 1, Subtask 2 should refer to "Decision Analysis", not "Design Analysis" as currently indicated.

Attachment 7, page 5

The FP Labor Rate Build tabs require values for Years of Experience and Educational Degree. Attachment 10, Labor Categories does not provide education levels for the labor categories. Without consistent educational levels applied across offerors, the resulting prices will not be consistent or comparable between offerors. It is requested that the Labor Categories in Attachment 10 be modified to include minimum educational levels for each labor category and/or experience level.

The spreadsheet has been revised to eliminate the "years of experience" and "Educational Degree" columns.

Attachment

Problem Statement 1 and 2 references the DoD Open System Architecture. Please provide access to the DoD Open System Architecture.

https://acq.osd.mil has numerous policies and guidance related to DoD OSA. The DoD Open Systems Architecture Guidebook is available through multiple sources.

Attachment

Request the government to switch Problem Statement #1 and #3 between competition pools to better align with Large and Small business respectively. Not many small businesses do not have the expertise in creating and managing communications links using additional, and more diverse, signal media including optical length wavelengths, electromagnetic spectrum frequencies, satellite communications, or emerging data transmission technologies.

Request noted. No change to the solicitation will be made. As clearly stated in the Problem Statement #3, "The offeror may base their plan on the above example, or propose a different, yet quantifiable, capability shortfall in the DISA mission space."

Attachment 7- Problem Statement

#3

Can we assume that the Capacity Development Document (CDD) has already been developed for program statement #1.

No. The information in the proposed plan is expected to contain relevant decision making information that is typically found in an ICD. Data elements in an ICD can have overlap with data elements in a Draft Capabilities Description Document, but a final CDD is not completed during the phase identified in PS #1. The relevant decision making information is provided to provide context to those elements typically utilized, not as a finite list of what must be and what should not be included. REF:

"...may contain, but is not limited to:"

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

#1.

DISA states that “Leadership has directed a maximum three-year window to go from the initial concept determination, to system development, to implementing the functional system into production"? Does the 3 year window close at limited deployment (LD), or at initial operational capacity (IOC), or at

It is up to the offeror to determine what milestone is feasible to plan towards within the timeframe identified.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

#1.

full deployment decision (FDD)?

The government indicates if they like the proposed solution, they may ask the vendor to price the solution. If the work begins at Pre-Milestone A, will the contractors working on Milestone A tasks be excluded for follow-on phases of the project due to OCI?

This would need to be determined by the OCO for any task orders for subsequent phases, but there is a risk that an OCI would disqualify the awardee from such follow-on phases.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

#1.

The references to resumes has been removed from Attachment 7 and Section L.4.2.5. Tab E: Problem Statement Narrative.

Please confirm that resumes are no longer required for the Problem Statements.

Confirmed. Resumes are not required in responding to the Problem Statements.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement #1 and #2.

Are the mobile apps implemented published via Apple/Google Apps or using the Mobile Application Store (MAS)?

The method of application publication is up to the offeror to decide.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

#2.

Can the mobile application be built using the open source frameworks available like Apache Cordova or is DISA looking for COTS products?

The application build framework used is up to the offer to decide and showcase in their proposal. If the offeror deems a COTS product to be most appropriate, that is a decision left up to the offeror.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

#2.

What security standards have to be implemented? Securing data at-rest, in-transit etc.

It is up to the offeror to decide and showcase which security standards they will implement, based on the referenced DoD policies and guidance.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

#2.

231 Do these mobile apps handle PII and PHI information?

The "…proposed plan for developing an architecture…" may account for mobile apps that do and do not handle many types of SBU information, but it is not required as per the assumptions of PS #2.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

#2.

What is the anticipated user count and user demographics; user demographics will dictate UX methodology

In "…proposing a plan for developing an architecture…" the specific user count and demographic do not need to be finalized as the "plan for developing an architecture" would be used for multiple user demographics. As stated in the considerations, "…capturing information-related requirements in a coherent manner, and in a way that appropriately reflects the UX needs of our warfighters, operators and end users."

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

#2.

233 Is DISA ok with Hybrid Mobile Apps vs Native Mobile apps.

The utilization of Hybrid or Native mobile apps is up to the offeror.

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

#2.

What OS and How many versions do we need to support?

Android, iOS and Windows 10 etc. General approach is support 3 versions of the OS (including the latest version)

The specific operating systems and versions are up to the offeror to decide.

Attachment 7, Problem

#2.

Does DISA have an MDM solution in-place or is looking for one?

As stated in the problem statement, "Specific elements that could be included in plan to develop an enterprise architecture are not limited to any one particular service, strategy, standard, project, or application."

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

#2.

For better UX, all interactions with enterprise systems should respond with-in 200ms. Are the current enterprise API’s mobile optimized (i.e. fast, less data etc..)

The Government acknowledges the vendor's statement about "better UX response time."

As stated in the problem statement, "Specific elements that could be included in plan to develop an enterprise architecture are not limited to any one particular service, strategy, standard, project, or application."

Attachment 7, Problem Statement

#2.

The RFP states: The Offeror shall submit a narrative discussing how they will handle and process changes and/or Task Order modifications. Include a discussion of timelines, competitive proposals from subcontractors and fair and reasonable pricing.

Given that the intent of Problem Statement #3 is for offeror will propose a plan to enable the Government to make a Material Development Decision (MDD), the requirement for Change Management Process seems inappropriate as the MDD occurs before any Task Orders would be issued or need modifying. Can the government clarify what is required with respect to Change Management Process?

The Offeror should submit a narrative discussing how they will handle and process changes and/or Task Order Modifications.

This narrative should include a discussion of timelines, competitive proposals from subcontractors and the submission of fair and reasonable pricing. The Government would like to know how the Offeror will deal with and execute changes should they win the Task Order.

L4.2.5.5 Change

Manageme nt Process

For the Problem Statement #4 plan, is the government seeking schedule, organizational chart, enterprise architecture (EA) tools, etc. to deliver the EA plan, along with technical approach?

Per L.4.2.5.7, no schedule or organizational chart is required for Problem Statement #4.

Per Attachment 7, one intended outcome of Problem Statement #4 asks "Would the proposed enterprise architecture plan facilitate management, planning, and execution of agile, adaptive, and dynamic operations that proactively evolve according to external and internal influences...?"

L.4.2.5.7 Problem

Statement Narrative

What is meant by transition potential in Problem Statement #4 with respect to its contribution to JIE?

Can the solution proposed in Problem Statement #4 showcase a relevant contribution to the DoD's JIE?

L.4.2.5.8 Potential

Contributio n and

Relevance

Since L.5.2.1 TAB A paragraph “e” states that the small business participation “goals are a percentage of the total acquisition value (TAV)” and Attachment 8(b) requires that offerors “Submit the total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors)”, won’t the line on Attachment 8 that states “Total Percentage planned for Small Business(es)” be 100% for all Offerors in the Restricted Pool because the Offerors will receive 100% of the TAV, regardless of whether or not they subcontract anything? If so, please confirm that a SDVOSB Offeror’s submission would be as follows regardless of what was subcontracted to SDBs, WOSBs, HUBZone or HBCU/MIO: SB: 100%, SDB to include 8(a): x%, WOSB:

x%, HUBZone SB: x%, VOSB: 100%, SDVOSB: 100%, HBCU/MI: x%, If the above is correct, recommend that the government remove the inclusion of the Prime contractor in these calculations and goals. If the above is not correct, please explain why.

No, this submission would only be correct if the SDVOSB prime contractor would self-perform 100% of the work or if it only planned to subcontract to other SDVOSBs.

If the prime contractor would be subcontracting any work to other than SDVOSBs, including subcontracting to other types of small businesses or to large businesses, it would need to identify these percentages in the Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan.

L.5.2.1 and Attachment

While it is explicit that the government asks offerors to, "propose a plan that enables the Government to make a Concept Determination (pre-milestone A) (Attachment 7, Problem Statement #1 at paragraph 2), the list of assumptions and evaluation criteria listed in Problem Statement #1 appear to be requesting offerors to provide the sort of analysis that would be the output of carrying out the plan. Can the government provide more clarification on the scope of responses they are seeking for Problem Statement #1?

The scope is identified in the Intended Outcome section of PS #1. The assumptions listed are not meant to showcase a requirement to carry out the plan, they are listed to provide reference of relevant information that may be useful to offerors to familiarize themselves with the applicable DoD-related polices, frameworks, and strategies for designing, developing, and deploying DoD Information Systems.

Att 7 - Problem

Statements

The Government has stated for problem statement #1 that "The proposed solution will operate solely on the UNCLASSIFIED NIPRNET." and "The proposed solution will process and store Personally Identifiable Information (PII)." Since the rest of the problem statement requires a focus on requirements management and pre-acquisition support rather than choosing an actual solution, can the Government please clarify the intent of the terms "proposed solution" in the sentences quoted?

Assumptions are provided to help scope offeror's responses. They are not indicative of the actual deliverable being requested.

The "proposed solution" is synonymous with the "proposed plan".

Attach #7 Problem

Statement 1

The problem states that "Leadership has directed a maximum three-year window to go from the initial concept determination, to system development, to implementing the functional system into production." Can the Government confirm that this means Milestone C complete by the 3 year point?

It is up to the offeror to determine what milestone is feasible to plan towards within the timeframe identified.

Attach #7 Problem

Statement 1

On Problem Statement 4, the Government references “…DISA stakeholders require a capability to map and articulate relationships between DISA's technology areas, business functions, processes and capabilities.” The intended outcomes do not articulate what types of analysis or decision making the Government is trying to achieve as it relates to business functions. Will the Government consider adding context to understand what question(s) is trying to be answered?

No change to the Problem Statement will be made to add additional context beyond that is already provided. The type of analysis or decision-making mechanisms achievable are up to the offeror to decide.

Attach #7 Problem

Statement 4

Section L directs bidders to provide annual CONUS ceiling rates by labor category for both Government-site and contractor-site labor. Section C.9 Place of Performance states that "Work may be performed on-site, at all CONUS and OCONUS Government facilities, at the Contractor's facility, sub-contractor facility, supplier, or other designated locations."

For purposes of Contractor-site ceiling rate development, should bidders incorporate traditional contractor-site overhead costs rather than those overhead costs associated with alternative non-Government site arrangements like telecommuting?

Yes, the contractor-site rates should include traditional overhead costs when personnel work at a contractor's facilities but also in accordance with its cost accounting practices.

L.6.2 and C.9

Can DISA provide any insightful information about the Knowledge Management / Decision Support Tool that may be in use to support JCIDS documents (referenced in JCIDS 3170)? Does the KN/DS Tool provide compatibility with Rational tools? Does DISA have a preference to continue using existing KM / DS tools?

The Government will not provide additional detail on the specific tools to be utilized, that is up to the offeror to decide and provide in their response.

Att. 7;

Problem

Statement

#3 (JCIDS

3170)

Please clarify the use of the phrase “Innovative Solution” in the problem statement title relating to the government’s request that “…the offeror will propose a plan that enables the Government to make a Concept Determination…” As posed, the plan would entail those actions and related deliverables necessary for the Government to determine the best Solution/solution approach at the end of the effort; the title suggests that the offeror should not only be proposing a specific solution, but one that is “innovative”. However, the current problem statement scope ends at Concept Determination, at which point a solution decision would be made that may or may not be innovative.

If an offeror chooses to pose a specific solution that is not innovative, that is a decision that can be made by the offeror.

Problem Statement

#1 title

What Acquisition Category and Type should we assume the Personnel Management System (PMS) is, as defined according to DODI 5000.02?

At the phase identified in Problem Statement #1, the ACAT level of the PMS is immaterial.

Problem Statement #1, general

To what extent should we consider DoDI 5000.75 as guidance for this Problem Statement?

The offeror may consider DoDI 5000.75 if they deem necessary. The references provided explicitly state "Relevant reference information includes; but is not limited to:"

Problem Statement #1, general

Can we assume that at this point all formal "decision authority" will reside within DISA? For example, can we assume that the PMS will not be designated "JROC Interest" or Joint Capabilities Board Interest"?

Yes. As stated, "The requirement will be owned and operated by DISA, with all authoritative data originating from DISA internal resources. It is not expected for the proposed system to have any integration or interface links with non-DISA systems."

Problem Statement #1, general

Please clarify whether the government expects the offeror to provide actual content in its response to the bulleted items listed after this statement or only a description how such content will be developed as part of the offeror’s approach?

The language included in the Problem Statements include the applicable content that should be considered in an offeror's response.

Attachment 7, 2nd page, Intended Outcome paragraph

#2

The Assumptions state that the Government has already reached an MDD. Per DODI 5000.02 “The ICD is the fundamental requirements document establishing validated capability requirements; required for the MDD.” This implies that the ICD is already complete. Please clarify why the offeror is expected to include relevant decision making information typical of an Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), or should the requirement be for information typical of a Capability Description Document (CDD)?

The information in the proposed plan is expected to contain relevant decision making information that is typically found in an ICD. Data elements in an ICD can have overlap with data elements in a Draft Capabilities Description Document, but a final CDD is not completed during the phase identified in PS #1. The relevant decision making information is provided to provide context to those elements typically utilized, not as a finite list of what must be and what should not be included. REF:

"...may contain, but is not limited to:"

Attachment 7, 2nd page, Intended Outcome paragraph

#2

The government requires the following for Estimating System:

Provide a summary description of your standard estimating system or methods that you may utilize on any Task Orders that may result from any award made from this solicitation.

The summary description shall cover separately each major cost element (e.g., Direct Material, Engineering Labor, Manufacturing Labor, Indirect Costs, Other Direct Costs, Overhead, G&A, etc.). 1) Can the government please provide additional details of what it means by Engineering Labor and Manufacturing Labor? 2) Are these subsets of Direct Labor?

3) In our accounting methods, Overhead and G&A are elements of Indirect Costs. Will we meet the government's requirements if we answer these are part of our response to indirect costs?

Provide a summary description of how you estimate costs for each major cost element.

Cost elements in the parenthesis are examples of major cost elements. These elements may be different for each offeror.

L.6.3.1 Estimating

System

The RFP states that the roadmap should be "specifically applicable to the efforts" we present (RFP L.4.2.4.5), which are set to be within a three (3) year timeframe (RFP L.4.2.4.3;

Section M.2.3.1). Please clarify whether the roadmap should also comply with a three (3) year timeframe?

The "roadmap" required by L.4.2.4.5 may go beyond three years prior to issuance of the RFP if information in that time period would be helpful to determine the relevance of the submitted past performance references.

L.4.2.4.3, L.4.2.4.5, and M.2.3.1

Attachment 9: The % escalation on the "FP labor rate table" tab escalates the previous year's fully loaded rate. However, our standard practice is to escalate our direct labor rate and then add our indirect rate, which may vary from year to year.

Please clarify whether the Government requires that we use a single % as currently set up on the "FP labor rate table", or whether Offerors revise the workbook to allow for full rate build ups for each of the 10 contract years.

The Attachment 9 Workbook requires a single fully loaded rate for all contract years, including escalation and indirect costs.

Attachment

Assumption 5 states “no links” with non-DISA systems does this mean: There are no commercial network carriers involved with the solution space?

The solution space is to be determined by the offeror. As long as it relates to an identifiable IT capability gap that may be solved by a technology, or technology area, that the offeror is highly-skilled in. The offeror may base their plan on the above example, or propose a different, yet quantifiable, capability shortfall in the DISA mission space.

In problem statement 3 under the

5th assumption

The scope of this problem statement is not limited to Internet Protocol (IP) technologies, other communications media and formats are within scope, correct?

Yes, as long as they are in the DISA mission space.

Problem Statement 3

General Question

Per section 6.3.8, "Load all architecture baselines, artifacts, data, and documentation into the architecture repository" Does this exist now? If so, what is the platform?

The specific architecture repositories will be specified at the task order level.

L.6.3.8

Per section 6.4, " Does the Government currently utilize Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) support tools? If so, can a list be provided?

SDLC support tools may be specified at the task order level but are not applicable to articulate finitely at the ID/IQ contract level.

L.6.4

Per section 6.8.5, "The Contractor shall support cloud-engineering deployments in at least four environments (Private cloud, Community cloud, Public cloud, and Hybrid cloud).” Is the Government currently utilizing all four environments or only a subset? Is there a preferred Public cloud provider? Is there a preferred Private cloud platform (i.e. VMware, Citrix, Hyper-V)?

The Government's current usage of cloud environments does not alter the offeror's proposal to the ID/IQ RFP. Any further preference to cloud providers will be substantiated at the task order level and are not appropriate at the ID/IQ level.

L.6.8.5

Given the first assumption provided for Problem Statement 3 on Page 5 of Attachment 7 – Problem Statements, is the contractor to assume that a Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA) has been completed and that DISA is only considering the plan to meet the objectives of an Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)? Alternatively, is the government expecting the contractor to provide a response consistent with the requirements of both the CBA and the ICD? If the CAB is complete, can we be provided a copy of it?

The information in the proposed plan is expected to contain relevant decision making information that is typically found in an ICD. Data elements in an ICD can have overlap with data elements in a Draft Capabilities Description Document, but a final CDD is not completed during the phase identified in PS #1. The relevant decision making information is provided to provide context to those elements typically utilized, not as a finite list of what must be and what should not be included. REF:

"...may contain, but is not limited to:" If data elements contained in the completed CAB are deemed relevant by the offeror, they may include those data elements as they see fit.

Problem Statement 3, Attach 7

Does the term "Project" referenced in the instructions, refer to the effort to develop the plan that enables the Government to make a MDD or does it refer to the effort to execute whatever is approved at the MDD?

Per L.4.2.5.1, the project refers to the approach/plan for each problem statement.

Considering that offerors will have no knowledge of whether a proposed plan is approved beyond MDD, it would seem obvious that the reference is for the developmental and planning efforts leading up to the milestone identified.

L.4.2.5.2 - L.4.2.5.5

Does the government envision that the Corporate Contract Manager/Point of Contact will be the same as the IDIQ PM?

The Corporate Contract Manager/Point of Contact referenced in L.3.2.9.2 is the same individual who would perform the program management duties described in Section C, PWS Section 6.9.1 and in G7.6.

L.3.3.9.2.

The requirement under "Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations" calls for offerors to list Locations where work may be performed and percentage of work to be performed at each location. This information is not defined until after Task order award. Please clarify.

The level of detail provided to answer this question is up to the offeror. If a location is not provided in the proposal that would be required at the Task Order level, the OCO would need to approve and/or have the location added to the DD254.

L.3.2.4

Will Task Order Contract Types permitted under SETI be able to accommodate SaaS solutions and related subscription fee-type prices?

To the extent such fees could be considered an "Other Direct Cost," this would be addressed at the task order level.

RFP p. 8-9, Section B.3

Can an explanation for the two IT Level Classifications IT-I and IT-II be provided in brief?

Personnel security requirements will be determined at the Task Order level. The specifics between the two classifications will be denoted in the individual task orders.

RFP, p. 31, Section

12.2

345 Would DISA please extend the date of the submission?

The Government is extending the proposal due date to 4 April 2017.

SF 33

Section 9

Regarding the SF33 and acknowledging the amendment(s) posted to FBO on March 6: on FBO, each document was uploaded as a separate amendment (1-4), but the naming of the files all references amendment 1. In block 14 of the SF33, would DISA like the offerors to acknowledge amendments 1-4 dated March 6 or is the set of documents considered 1 amendment?

Each Amendment will be issued and posted to FBO with any other documents required for that Amendment. The Amendment # is on each SF30. Only the SF30 Amendments need to be acknowledged not the documents posted with the Amendments.

Per requirements of some government contracting offices (e.g.

DARPA), the government customer is only allowed to send completed PPQs to the requesting government POC. Would the government please consider providing a government POC to receive a PPQ for a case such as this?

No. L.4.2.4.3

Does the Government intend for the Risk Management Plan (RMP) to be included in the 15 pages in Problem Statement #3?

Yes.

L.4.2.5.4

Will the Government permit cross-referencing between problem statements (same volume)?

No.

L.2.2.5

Will the Government permit cross-referencing between problem statements (same volume)?

No. L.2.2.5

Does the Government intend for the Risk Management Plan (RMP) to be included in the 15 pages in Problem Statement #1 or #3?

Yes. L.4.2.5.4

In order to ensure that the government receives proposals with rates that align to future task order work and in order to prohibit unrealistically low rates, we recommend that paragraph L.6.2 specify a geographic location to be used as the basis of the offeror’s IDIQ ceiling rates. Otherwise offerors could use a geographic location with a very low cost of living that is highly unlikely to be used as a place of performance, and certainly not the primary place of performance. Making this requested change to the pricing of ceiling rates further ensures a fair competition and evaluation.

No changes are made.

Attachment

We respectfully request a 30 day extension to the 2 pm March 24, 2017 proposal deadline, to accommodate additional time required to respond to new information generated by the Q&As and March 10, 2017 Pre-Proposal Conference.

The Government is extending the proposal due date to 4 April 2017.

RFP p.1, SF 33, Block 9

Are offerors required to demonstrate capabilities and past performance qualifications in all subtasks of a given Task Area?

No.

RFP pp.

13-29, Section 6.1

- 6.8

In the Cost/Price Proposal, 'no subcontractor rates are required or permitted' is indicated. Also mentioned is that in Task Orders, subcontractors fully burdened labor rates will be subject to the prime Offeror's fixed price ceiling rates for fixed price and T&M Task Orders/CLINS. Can the Task Order with subcontractor fully burdened labor rates and prime Offeror's rates aspect be elaborated-on in this context?

The rates proposed at the task order level shall not exceed the Offeror's fixed price ceiling rates regardless of if it performed by the Offeror or a Subcontractor.

RFP p. 120, Section 6.0, L.6.2

Do Offerors (prime contractors) in the Restricted pool have to submit a 'total combined percentage of work to be performed' calculation, as illustrated in the example?

Yes.

HC1047-

17-R-0001, Attachment

8, p. 1

Do Offerors (prime contractors) in the Restricted pool have to provide a Small Business participation breakdown by each type of subcategory small business with percentages? Can they include their own Small Business subcategory or subcategories with percentages if such is the case?

Yes, restricted pool offerors have to…