HC1047-17-R-0001-_Amdendment_5.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 this amendment is to answ er questions, remove the Cyber Security Threat Plan, Add Disclosure Language to Att 9 (no other changes have been made to it. Language updates in Red) and make minor revisions to the solicitation. See Summary of Changes for revisions.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-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 is extended, X is not extended.

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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

23-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 5

Que stion

Questions / Comments Government Response RFP Sort

Reference

Proposing a plan that is compatible with existing and emerging standards" - Could you please provide a list of existing & emerging standards?

Existing and emerging standards include those identified within the reference documents, policies, and guidances provided in Problem Statements #2 & #4.

M.2.4.3

What is the DISA's approval process for onboarding new companies after IDIQ award?

After award of the ID/IQ contracts, each contractor must comply with the goals established in its Small Business

Participation Plan, but each contractor has discretion to use subcontractors not identified in the Small Business Participation Plan, consistent with the requirements of the contract and the relevant task order.

L.5.0

L.5.2. TAB A Small Business Participation and Commitment

Plan section requires offeror to use FAR Part 19. During the Pre

Proposal conference held on March 10th, Slide #18 advised to use DFARS Subpart 215.304 & DoD Source Selection

Procedures. Please clarify exact FAR and DFARS requirement we should comply with in section L.5.2.1?

The FAR Part 19 Reference in L.5.2 is regarding the definitions of federally designated categories which apply to both the

Small Business Participation and

Commitment Plans as well as the

Subcontracting Plans. DFARS Subpart

215.304 and the DoD Source Selection

Procedures were referenced during the pre-proposal conference because they require/recommend evaluating the utilization of small business as a factor in best value trade-off source selections.

L.5.2

In Cells G4 to L4, indirect1, indirect 2 …… indirect 6: %age is being asked to be filled. We assume that these indirect items are fringe benefits, overheads, G&A etc. Please confirm if our assumption is true.

The indirect costs here are at the Offeror's discretion. Offerors shall propose whatever indirect costs it applies to their Direct Labor in accordance with each Offerors Cost

Accounting Standards.

Att_9_-

Cell G4 to

L4

631 Why there are 6 separate columns for indirect cost?

For Offerors to submit their indirects individually instead of as a consolidation of their indirects. The spreadsheet was designed with the intent to allow offerors with numerous indirect rate categories to propose its indirect rates in accordance with its Cost

Accounting Standards. Offerors may add or delete columns as necessary on the "FP

Labor Rate Build" tabs in order for the

Offeror to propose all of its indirect rate categories in accordance with its Cost

Accounting Standards.

Att_9_-G4 to L4

In Cells O4 to Q4, FCCM1, FCCM2 …… FCCM3: %age is being asked to be filled. Please confirm if this is ODC which can be reimbursed.

This is not an ODC. FCCM stands for

Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCM).

Some Offerors may have this indirect cost, some may not.

Att_9_-

Cell O4 to

Q4

633 Do we need to put formulae or we can simply put net values?

Offerors need to fill out Attachment 9 in accordance with the instructions and should not be using pure net values.

Att 9

The link provided in question 202 does not work from both company owned and government provided computers. Would the government please provide a corrected link so all participants have equal access to this information http://www.acq.osd.mil/index.html

Amendmen t #3, Q&A

#202

Would the Government please define what the word "dormant" means in the context of Joint Venture members who have exceeded their size standard or left the Joint Venture.

If a joint venture is awarded a contract in either the unrestricted or the restricted pool, the departure or closure 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 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 would be placed into dormant status. In a joint venture consisting of only small businesses in the restricted pool, 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. Dormant status is described in H2 and H4. A joint venture must be able to recertify itself as a small business for the restricted pool in order for its option to be exercised.

H4

The government states that offerors must provide “proof” of innovation. We understand the government’s objectives regarding demonstrating vs. just describing the history of innovation. Would the government please provide a location in the proposal where these proof points can be placed and exclude them from the page count.

This should be included in response to Factor

1, Tab C, Volume II. This must be included within the page limitations. An original document can be summarized or excerpted in response to Factor 1 in lieu of including a complete copy. It is up to the offeror to ensure any summary and excerpts are sufficient to provide an adequate understanding of the innovation(s) discussed.

Amendmen t 3 Q&A

Question

This question was previously asked on March 7, 2017 but it was not included in the government's answers posted via RFP

Amendment 0002. It was asked again on March 13, 2017 but it was not included in the government's answers posted via RFP

Amendment 0003. Attachment 9 – The government provided pricing workbook - Column C on the FP labor rate build tabs is called “Internal Labor Category”. If the Offeror does not have an internal labor category, does this field still need to be populated? If so, what should be entered into this field?

If the Offeror does not have an Internal

Labor Category, they should state so.

Attachment

This question was previously asked on March 13, 2017 but it was not included in the government's answers posted via RFP

G15 has been revised to add 30th days after the last day of each contract year.

G15

Amendment 0003. The government did not really answer

Question 242 in RFP Amendment 0002. The answer provided, "Reports due on the last day of each contract year are for the contract year just completed." For example, if the contract year equals the calendar year, the reports would be due on December

31. However, a contractor will not have been able to accumulate the data to be reported, which includes data from up to and including December 31 and have the report submitted by

December 31. Will the government allow 30 days from the last day of each contract year (in the case of this example, December

31) to submit the report (in this example, the report due date would be January 30)? This would make complete and accurate reporting possible and would provide the same administrative time period allowed by eSRS for the large businesses.

The government states that offerors must provide “proof” of innovation. Will the government accept references to Monthly

Status Reports for programs in question?

Yes.

Amendmen t 3 Q&A

Question

What constitutes a “letters from the owners”? We believe this means a signed letter from the prime contractor certifying that the innovation did in fact occur, but the answer to is ambiguous enough to require clarification. Will the government provide specificity regarding what constitutes “letters from the owners”, and specify in what tab/section of the proposal we should provide these documents. We request that this information not be included in the page limit.

The "owner" is the ultimate customer who paid for and uses the solution. From a federal contracting perspective, the prime contractor is not the owner. The response to

Factor 1 must comply with the page limitations. An original document can be summarized or excerpted in response to

Factor 1 in lieu of including a complete copy.

It is up to the offeror to ensure any summary and excerpts are sufficient to provide an adequate understanding of the innovation(s) discussed.

Amendmen t 3 Q&A

Question

Our understanding is that by signing the offer, we are certifying that our offer is true and correct (e.g. proof)and that the information contained therein accurately reflects our activities. Further, some “proof” documents are classified or not-releasable. Will the government accept a certification statement from the offeror stating that all claims and assertions in our offer are true and correct in lieu of “proof” documents that may be page-excessive or impossible to provide?

No. However, an original document can be summarized or excerpted in response to

Factor 1 in lieu of including a complete copy.

It is up to the offeror to ensure any summary and excerpts are sufficient to provide an adequate understanding of the innovation(s) discussed. No classified information should be submitted with any proposal.

Amendmen t 3 Q&A

Question

The Government's response to modifying the Attachment #9 excel workbook was "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." Question: In order to comply with an accurate rate build methodology, while also complying with the requirement to provide a rate for every category, bidders may need to use subcontractor resources and rates for certain categories. Given the response to #122, may bidders insert a column in the Excel to account for indirect burdens on subcontractor rates in alignment with the guidance in question #122?

No.

Amendmen t #3; Q&A

#122

The Government's response to the question on proof of implementation to History of Engineering and Deploying

Innovative Solutions is "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." The RFP has not allocated space, nor provides any instructions as to where such documentation would be included. This "clarification" to the question is extremely limiting as commercial innovative solutions are often proprietary and CPARS rarely provide sufficient detail on post deployment results. We request that typical justifications, such as metrics and statistics, be deemed acceptable for the purposes of the technical proposal, as is the standard for Government technical volumes.

No changes are made to the solicitation.

Offerors may submit metrics and statistics.

An original document can be summarized or excerpted in response to Factor 1 in lieu of including a complete copy but it is up to the offeror to ensure any summary and excerpts are sufficient to provide an adequate understanding of the innovation(s) discussed.

Amendmen t #3, Q&A

#109

Q: #380 Can Offerors use teammate experience in the

Innovation Section? A: For Factor 1, the information provided by the Offeror shall be in relation to the entity listed in Block

15A of this solicitation.SECTIONL.4.2.3.4 You say over and over to include the Contractor Teaming Arrangement in that section if you are using your Subcontractors experience. Then in 499 you say you can use a Sub for Past Performance which is not compliant with the RFP and in previous sets of Q&A you say that you can use subcontractor experience in Factor 1

Innovation but you need to include the CTA agreement in that section. The RFP reads that you can only use the Prime's experience for Factor 2: Past Performance and Task Area

Experience but you can use your subcontractor's experience in

FACTOR 1 Innovation. Please confirm quickly to industry what you can use where.

The RFP and the Q&A are clear and consistent, and no further clarification will be provided.

In the Q&As released on 15 Mar 17, Question 357, pertaining to the rates, the Government's answers states the Offeror's proposed rates cannot exceed the fixed price ceiling rates on the

Contract. Question 391 asks for a breakout of the various types of task orders. The Government's response stated they have not made a determination, but "guess the preponderance of the work would be executed in a CR manner. Since CR type task orders requires the use of "actuals" for the labor rate determination, what would happen if the CR type rate exceeds the maximum ceiling rates of the IDIQ contract? How can the Government establish maximum ceiling rates for CR type task orders.

The Government is not establishing ceiling rates or rate caps for cost-reimbursement work in future task orders, only for work that is firm-fixed-price or time-and-materials.

Since all proposal sections are required to be submitted as individual files per volume, may we include a cover page for each required section that will not count against that volume section’s page limit? For example, within Volume I, may we include a cover page for Tab A, Executive Summary, as well as

Tabs B-I, and the same for Volumes II and III?

Yes. A cover sheet may be included which does not count against the page limitations.

The RFP Section K incorporates DFARs 252.234–7003 Notice of Cost and Software Data Reporting System. This clause specifically requires the offeror to provide "as part of its proposal" feedback on a "Resource Distribution Table" that should have been included with the RFP/solicitation and a description of how the offeror will confirm to the software cost data requirements of the clause. Does the government want offerors to provide the data as required under 252.234 (b) with our proposal?

Clause will be removed.

Section K, Did the government intend to include "252.234-7004 Cost and

Software Data Reporting System--Basic (Nov 2014)" in Section

K instead of " 252.234–7003 Notice of Cost and Software Data

Reporting System" which is included now in Section K.

No.

Section K, If the government wants offerors to provide the information required by DFARs 252.234–7003, will the government provide the required CSDR plan and the "Resource Distribution Table" to allow offerors to respond?

Clause will be removed.

Section K, If the government wants offerors to provide the information required by DFARs 252.234–7003, what section should this information be included in?

Clause will be removed. No submission required.

Section K, In the most recent amendment 3 released on 15 - Mar - 2017, the Government answered question 304 with a repeat of the answer in Question 25. The subject of question 304 was

Problem statement #3 and not Problem Statement #1, which was the subject of question 25. Problem Statement #3 assumes that the Material Development Decision (MDD) has not been reached and in Problem Statement #1 offerors are to assume that the Government has reached the Material Development

Decision (MDD) and has confirmed the necessity of a material solution. Respectfully, we ask the Government to review question 304 in light of the above information and answer the question as originally posed "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 #3. 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.

Per Amendment 04, we are to submit the proposal via Email and there is size restriction for single file and single email. Will the

Government support the submission of Proposal via AMRDEC

SAFE, which supports a file size up to 2 GB?

The Government will not permit submission of proposals on AMRDEC SAFE. The

Army's SAFE program's Authority to

Operate expires on 15 May 2017. And will not be available throughout the duration of the SETI Source Selection. Offerors can break up Tabs into multiple smaller files if need be.

With regard to Amd 3 question 109 and Amd 4 question 637, the Government provided several examples of “proof” of innovation—letters, CPARs, etc.--all of which would require the use of at least one page each to include in the proposal and significant rework of proposal content if they are not permitted to be provided outside the 20 page limit. Will the Government allow these types of proof to be provided outside of the 20 page limit. If not, will the Government allow screen captures of the letters, CPARs, etc. so long as the content remains readable?

An original document can be summarized or excerpted in response to Factor 1 in lieu of including a complete copy but it is up to the offeror to ensure any summary and excerpts are sufficient to provide an adequate understanding of the innovation(s) discussed.

There will be no increase to the page limits.

Amd 3

A&A 109;

Amd 4

Q&A 637

If our innovation is part of a live/deployed DISA system or program, what proof is required beyond a description of the innovation itself with quantifiable benefits?

A description of the innovative system or program itself, and it's quantifiable benefits, is acceptable.

L.4.2.3.3

It is our assumption that in addition to the Master TOC and

Volume TOCs, it is acceptable to have file-level TOCs. Is this assumption correct?

Yes.

Amd 4

Q&A 512

It is our assumption that in addition to Volume-level Glossaries, it is acceptable to have file-level glossaries. Is this assumption correct?

Yes.

Amd 4

Q&A 418

In an effort to bring cutting edge innovation to DISA SETI we are trying to partner with a major University who does outstanding innovative research. The University has expressed concerns that they are not equipped to handle the timesheet reporting, affirmative action reporting required, and is only registered in SAM to receive "Grants" not "Contracts". Please confirm it is acceptable to work with innovative Universities and commercial entities (where they are a subcontractor) -working with them in the appropriate fashion (e.g., only FFP projects) where they are not required to massively change their whole organization, processes, procedures, etc., in order to accommodate this contract; and that the Prime contractor can still use them as the innovation arm, while fully complying with all FAR regulations.

Each prime contractor will be responsible for compliance with statutes and regulatory requirements." It's not our job to provide legal advice on how an offeror can work with a university within the limits of the law.

General

In Amendment 4, the Government revised L.2.3 to state, "Volume I shall be sent as one file…. Volumes II, III and IV shall have a separate file for each Tab…. To ensure delivery, no single email should exceed 15MB and no single file should exceed 5MB." Because some proposal contents, such as teaming agreements and images, cannot be included in one file that is

5MB or smaller, please confirm that offerors may submit multiple files for Volume I and each Tab in Volumes II, III, and

IV.

Yes. If size restrictions warrant this, separate files may be utilized for Vol. I and each tab.

But to the extent possible, limit the number of files and emails.

Could the Government please explain why the Veteran Owned

Small Business (VOSB) category was removed from Section

L.5.2.1, Tab A, Factor 4: Small Business Participation and

Commitment Plan as well as Attachment 8? There was an explanation as to why HBCU/MI was no longer included, but not VOSB.

DFARS 215.304(c)(i) does not require the submission of the extent of participation for

VOSB.

Amendment 0004 replaced Section L, which does not appear to have the clauses incorporated by reference, although they were not highlighted as a change. Are they still part of Section L, and would the Government provide a conformed copy of the RFP with all the changes?

Yes, the clauses are still part of the solicitation. The Government will not provided a conformed copy of the RFP.

Section L

Question 177, contained in Amendment 0004, clarified that bidders cannot add headers and footers in the pricing workbook because the Government would consider this to be tampering with the file. It is not clear if the clauses incorporated by reference are still part of Section L; however, our pricing workbook will include proprietary information. Because our responses for Tab A and B will be separate files, we need our proprietary markings to be on every file. In accordance with

FAR 52.215-1, would the Government permit us to add the proprietary restriction in the footer to the pricing workbook?

No. However, the Attachment 9 has been updated to include a legend marking the

"Instructions" of Attachment 9 as proprietary in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e) shall be deemed to apply to all sheets within the

Attachment 9 Workbook.

Attachment

9, Instructions tab, FAR

52.215-1

Q&A 441 states that offerors must provide copies of their teaming agreements as part of their Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan. Please clarify if in Volume III Tab A offerors must provide copies of agreements only for their proposed small business teammates, or if they must provide copies of agreements for ALL proposed teammates (i.e. both large and small businesses)?

Per L.5.2.1, "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."

L.5.2.1

Your request for the DISA SETI proposal lists a proposal deadline of April 4, 2017. Would DISA consider extending the proposal deadline? In order to prepare a proposal of the scope that you have requested, we need an additional 30 days. We request that the deadline for submitting the proposal be extended to April 24, 2017. Please let us know if you can accommodate this request. We would like to work with you, but we need time to put together a meaningful proposal.

No extension will be executed. Proposals due date remains 4 April 2017 at 2 p.m.

General

Amendment 4 changed the proposal delivery mechanism from

CD to email and set the maximum file size limit to 5MB. The update also specifies that separate files are to be provided for each Tab in Volumes II, III, and IV. With graphics or images from PDF (e.g., PP questionnaire, CPARS), a single Tab may exceed the 5MB limit DISA has specified, particularly for past performance (Vol II Tab D) and problem statements (Vol II Tab

E). Would it be acceptable to submit more than one file for a single Tab (e.g., one file for each problem statement) if they were appropriately labeled?

Yes.

L.2.3 states that “no single email should exceed 15MB and no single file should exceed 5MB. Multiple emails and/or multiple files are acceptable to ensure delivery.” Some documents may not be able to be reduced to less than 5MB; e.g., Volume II, TAB B Partnership Joint Venture, or Teaming

Agreement(s)/Arrangements. Questions: 1) May the offeror further divide Volume I and the tabs in the other volumes in order to meet the file size requirement? 2) Will the Government accept compressed files?

1. Yes. 2. No.

The RFP requires offerors to submit some documents that may be marked “For Official Use Only”; e.g., CPARS and evidence of its approved estimating and purchasing systems. Now that proposals are required to be submitted via email, can the

Government please provide encryption certificates for the email address to which proposals are to be submitted so that offerors may encrypt their submission per DoDM 5200.01 V4?

No. With respect to "For Official Use Only"

(FOUO) information, DoDM 5200.01 V4 does not require email encryption and only requires "approved secure communications systems" for transmission of FOUO emails when "practical." The agency has determined it is not practical to accept encrypted emails for source selection proposal submissions.

Per the first page of the SF33, the Prime contractor is to complete block 14 “Acknowledgement of Amendments”. Is there a continuation that can be used should more amendments be received? There are currently only enough paces for four amendments to be listed.

There is not a continuation page. After those are filled in, the first page of the

Amendments themselves should be included.

RFP Amendment 0004 removed the bullet under "Offerors may be evaluated more favorably and achieve higher ratings for the following: - Plans that identify potential opportunities for

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority

Institutions (HBCU/MI)." Given this change, will offerors inclusion of HBCU/MI have any impact on the evaluation of the

Small Business Participation Plan?

If the inclusion on HBCU/MI enhances the proposal by containing greater detail and specificity or containing binding commitments, it may be given greater credit and achieve higher ratings. However, the

Government cannot speculate how it will evaluate it.

M.2.5.1

We understand that the proposal due date was extended to 4

April 2017. Would the Government further extend the proposal due date to 18 April 2017?

No.

In Amendment 4 the government released Q&A for various questions. In Question #484, a question was posed "The RFP reads, "Provide copies of all applicable signed joint venture agreements and teaming agreements." This requirement does not include SBA approval documentation for mentor protégée joint ventures seeking to compete in the restricted category. Will the

Government clarify if this documentation is required at time of submission?" The government responded "The Offeror should provide documentation necessary to ascertain their status if competing within the restricted pool if applicable. L.4.2.2.

states "Each offeror is responsible for compliance with the

SBA's regulations on joint ventures and size status, including regulations pertaining to 8(a) joint ventures, HUBZone joint ventures, and mentor-protégé joint ventures, when applicable."

L.2.0.2 also states, "If applicable, the Offeror shall submit evidence from the Offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the

Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel."

The question addressed mentor protégé agreements which must be sanctioned by the SBA and the SBA provides a written letter of approval. Otherwise, the SBA does not provide artifacts or evidence to sanction a small business joint venture partnership.

Please clarify the government's response to question #484 - the evidence requested applies only to SBA regulations pertaining to 8(a) joint ventures, HUBZone joint ventures, and mentor-protégé joint ventures. It is understood the JV legal agreement, and all sub-contracts or teaming agreements must be provided as required in L.4.2.2 Tab B.

To the extent applicable SBA regulations require approval of a joint venture agreement prior to submitting an offer for a contract set-aside or reserved for small business, such as a mentor-protégé joint venture under 13 CFR

Sections 125.8 and 125.9, evidence of such approval must be submitted with the proposal. Depending on the type of joint venture, SBA regulations may only require a

"certification of compliance" prior to performance of the contract.

Amendmen t 4, Q&A

#484

Amendment 04 received 20 March 2017, in section L.2.0.2

Contractor Team Arrangements: states that "If applicable, the

Offeror shall submit evidence from the Offeror’s SBA Servicing

Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel. Question: Can the Government please confirm our understanding that SBA only has to approve JV agreements for

8(a) JVs prior to award and not our SDVOSB JV which is organized under our SBA approved Mentor Protégé

Agreement."?

To the extent applicable SBA regulations require approval of a joint venture agreement prior to submitting an offer for a contract set-aside or reserved for small business, such as a mentor-protégé joint venture under 13 CFR

Sections 125.8 and 125.9, evidence of such approval must be submitted with the proposal. Depending on the type of joint venture, SBA regulations may only require a

"certification of compliance" prior to performance of the contract. Each offeror is responsible for determining which SBA requirement applies depending on the type of joint venture.

L.2.0.2

This question was previously asked on March 7, 2017 but it was not included in the government's answers posted via RFP

Amendment 0002. It was asked again on March 13, 2017 but it was not included in the government's answers posted via RFP

Amendments 0003 or 0004. Attachment 9 – The government provided pricing workbook - Column C on the FP labor rate build tabs is called “Internal Labor Category”. If the Offeror does not have an internal labor category, does this field still need to be populated? If so, what should be entered into this field?

If the Offeror does not have an Internal

Labor Category, they should state so.

Attachment

Requirement states "Multiple copies of each file is not required or requested." How does the government want offerors to reference files that are applicable to multiple volumes, e.g., teaming agreements?

The answer was in relation to quantity of copies of the CDs so that Offeror's didn't think we wanted three sets of the proposal submitted electronically.

L.2.3

Requirement states "Volume I shall be sent as one file labeled with the Offeror's name (or abbreviations) and Volume number

(example: XYZ Inc. Volume I)." Will the government allow a compressed/zipped file which may include a hierarchy of multiple folders and files within a single compressed/zipped file?

No. L.2.3

Requirement states "Volume I shall be sent as one file labeled with the Offeror's name (or abbreviations) and Volume number

(example: XYZ Inc. Volume I)." Volume I consists of 9 Tabs, which previous requirements meant that offerors would be submitting at least 9 files (more likely more). Does the new requirement mean that offerors are to combine all of these individual files into a single file named "Volume I" or should offerors keep the individual files and place them into a compressed/zipped file?

One file. However, if size restrictions warrant this, separate files may be utilized for Vol. I and each tab. But to the extent possible, limit the number of files and emails.

L.2.3

Requirement states "Volume I shall be sent as one file labeled with the Offeror's name (or abbreviations) and Volume number

(example: XYZ Inc. Volume I)." The DD254 provided by the government cannot be combined with other files unless it is compressed/zipped or if the document is scanned into a new file, which impacts the readability and usability by the government.

In addition, the Volume I Tab I submission will include company agreements that may not readily be combined unless they are compressed/zipped. How would the government like offerors to combine documents so that Volume I can "be sent as

If size restrictions warrant this, separate files may be utilized for Vol. I and each tab. But to the extent possible, limit the number of files and emails.

L.2.3 one file"?

RFP states "If the Offeror sends more than one email for their proposal, they must state in each email, "Email 1 of 2" and such.

The RFP also states "no single email should exceed 15MB and no single file should exceed 5MB." These requirements will force offerors to submit many separate emails that the government will be required to manage. In addition, email is probably the less secure of the many normal submission options.

Given this situation, would the government consider using the same process it used for the DISA ENCORE III proposal, i.e., uploading the proposal files on the secure DITCO Solicitation and Uploads website?

No. L.2.3

RFP Amendment 0004 removed the bullet under "Offerors may be evaluated more favorably and achieve higher ratings for the following: - Plans that identify potential opportunities for

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority

Institutions (HBCU/MI)." Given that the RFP's original guidance encouraged offerors to partner with HBCU/MI and create "enforceable commitments", and consequently, teaming agreements were executed with legally binding workshare allocated to HBCU/MI, will the government reinstate the

"evaluated more favorably" guidance or reissue a new RFP that will enable offerors relief from their binding agreements?

No. M.2.5.1

The SETI draft RFP as well as the final RFP included the incentive to use Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI). Based on this direction, this offeror has spent months developing a relationship with a

HBCU/MI. The RFP clearly stated that "enforceable commitments" with HBCU/MI "may be evaluated more favorably and achieve higher ratings". Consequently, offerors pursued HBCU/MIs and executed legally binding teaming agreements with them. The government's direction was maintained until RFP Amendment 0004 dated 20 March 2017, only 15 calendar days before proposals are due, when all references to HBCU/MIs were removed from the RFP. Offerors now have legally binding agreements in place but they will receive no proposal evaluation credit for doing exactly what the government requested. Consequently, there may be a cost associated with terminating these agreements, a cost which may be passed along to the government in the form of higher rates, which puts the offerors rates at a competitive disadvantage when compared with an offeror who did not attempt to comply with the government's request. Will the government return the bullet to Section M.2.5.2 what states that "offerors may be evaluated more favorably and achieve higher ratings for ... Plans that identify potential opportunities for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI)"?

No.

L.5.2.1, M.2.5.2

Amendment 4 deleted L.2.2.6 Indexing. However, L.2.2.1 still states that a table of contents is required for each volume. Please confirm that a table of contents is still required for each volume?

A TOC is required for each Volume. L.2.2.1

Volume I Tab B requires a Table of Contents for all Volumes.

Please clarify if Volume I must also include more detailed a

Table of Contents specifically for Volume I?

It does not. L.2.2.1

The RFP states: "Volumes II, III and IV shall have a separate file for each Tab (example: XYZ Inc. Volume II Tab A)." Please confirm that the Table of Contents for these volumes should be submitted as a separate file (i.e. each Tab is not required to have its own Table of Contents)?

The TOC should be a separate file. L.2.3

The RFP states: "Volumes II, III and IV shall have a separate file for each Tab (example: XYZ Inc. Volume II Tab A)." Please confirm that the Glossary for these volumes should be submitted as a separate file (i.e. each Tab is not required to have its own

Glossary)?

The Glossary, if included, should be a separate file.

L.2.3

Volume II Tab B asks for copies of Partnership, Joint Venture or Teaming Agreement(s)/Arrangements. Please confirm that in

Volume II Tab B offerors must provide teaming agreements for

ALL teammates the offeror is proposing (i.e. both large and small businesses), regardless of whether the teammates are mentioned elsewhere in the proposal?

Teaming Agreements between the prime offeror and proposed subcontractors are not required but are encouraged if the offeror is using the proposed subcontractor's information in the proposal, for instance as one of the past performance references. Joint

Venture Agreements are required if the entity in Block 15A is a joint venture.

L.4.2.2

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0007

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

The minimum may be invoiced for and paid after the attendance of the Kick-Off meeting and the delivery and acceptance of the SCRM and the Cyber Security Threat Plan.

To:

The minimum may be invoiced for and paid after the attendance of the Kick-Off meeting and the delivery and acceptance of the SCRM.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

SECTION C

C1. IDENTIFICATION OF NON-DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall have access to information, records, and live data which may be sensitive and/or proprietary, including information about Government files, source selection activities and processes, system vulnerabilities, data processing activities or functions, user IDs, passwords, and other sensitive information. The Contractor shall not divulge information about Government files, source selection activities and processes, or any other sensitive information to anyone not authorized to receive such information. The Contractor shall ensure that other persons are authorized to receive sensitive information before releasing it to them. See Attachment 11 for Non-Disclosure

Agreement (NDA) for Contractor Personnel. Unless waived by the OCO, the NDA must be executed between the

Contractor employee and the Government before the employee has access to the JIE or Government furnished information. The NDA may be revised during the life of the Contract. Updated NDAs may be required throughout the life of the Contract.

C2. DOD ENTERPRISE SERVICE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (DESMF) COMPLIANCE

All IT service requirements contained within the PWS shall be conducted in accordance with the DESMF which can be accessed at https://community.apan.org/wg/esmf_consortium_working_groups/m/desmf_ed_ii/.

C3. SUPPLY CHAIN RISK MANAGEMENT (SCRM)

This Contract and its associated Task Orders are subject to the Federal SCRM policies and regulations including the

DFARS 252.239-7017, Notice of Supply Chain Risk; 252.239-7018, Supply Chain Risk; DoD Instruction 5200.44, Protection of Mission Critical Functions to Achieve Trusted Systems and Networks; Section 806 of the FY2011

NDAA Requirements for Information Relating to Supply Chain Risk; and DISA Instruction 240-110-44, Supply

Chain Risk Management. A SCRM Plan is to be submitted after Contract award for the base ID/IQ. It will be applicable for all Task Orders. Task Orders may require a specific SCRM Plan and those requirements will be included in the Task Order PWS and/or the solicitation instructions for the Task Order. SCRM Plans shall address, at a minimum, Supply Chain Security Controls as specified in the Task Order and described in CNSSI 1253

(companion publication to NIST SP 800-53).

Supply Chain Risk Management Plan: In accordance with provision DFARS 252.239-7017, Notice of Supply Chain

Risk; DFARS 252.239-7018, Supply Chain Risk; DODI 5200.44, Protection of Mission Critical Functions to

Achieve Trusted Systems and Networks (TSN); and DISA Instruction 240-110-44, Supply Chain Risk Management, the Contractor shall submit a SCRM Plan within 30 days of Contract award. The SCRM Plan shall describe the supply chain risks associated with the product and/or service being provided, and how the Contractor will reduce and mitigate those supply chain risks.

The Contractor will execute their SCRM Plan and provide a SCRM Plan Update in the event of changes that affects supply chain risk. At a minimum, the following events substantiate the need for an update: changes in company ownership, changes in senior company leadership, supplier changes, subcontractor changes, and ICT supply chain compromises.

If, during the performance of a Task Order, the Contractor experiences a change that creates a supply chain risk that cannot be mitigated, then DISA must determine whether a continuation of the Contract may pose an undue risk to the common defense and security through the possible compromise of that information or material. If DISA determines that such a threat or potential threat exists, the Contracting Officer shall consider the alternatives of negotiating an acceptable method of isolating the supply chain risk that influences the Contractor or execute DFARS

239.73, Requirements for Information Relating to Supply Chain Risk.

Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Deliverables. This requirement is in accordance with the following provisions: DFARS 252.239-7017, Notice of Supply Chain Risk; DFARS 252.239-7018, Supply Chain Risk; DODI

5200.44, Protection of Mission Critical Functions to Achieve Trusted Systems and Networks (TSN); and DISA

Instruction 240-110-44.

The Contractor shall submit a SCRM Plan within 30 days of Contract award. The SCRM Plan shall describe the supply chain risks associated with the product and/or service being provided, and how the Contractor will reduce and mitigate those supply chain risks. In accordance with NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-53 and Committee on

National Security Systems Instruction (CNSSI) 1253 Appendix D, the SCRM plan shall address the following security controls, at a minimum:

Control

Number

HW SW Srvc

SA-12 Supply Chain Protection x x x

SA-12(1) Supply Chain Protection / Acquisition Strategies / Tools / Methods x x x*

SA-12(2) Supply Chain Protection / Supplier Reviews x x x*

SA-12(5) Supply Chain Protection / Limitation of Harm x x x*

SA-12 (7) Supply Chain Protection Assessments Prior to Selection / Acceptance/ Update x x x*

SA-12 (8) Supply Chain Protection / Use of All-Source Intelligence x x x*

SA-12 (9) Supply Chain Protection / Operations Security x x x

SA-12 (10) Supply Chain Protection / Validate as Genuine and Not Altered x x x*

SA-12 (11) Supply Chain Protection / Penetration Testing / Analysis of Elements, Processes, and Actors x x x

SA-12 (12) Supply Chain Protection / Inter-Organizational System Components x x x

SA-12 (13) Supply Chain Protection / Critical Information System Components x x x*

SA-12 (14) Supply Chain Protection / Identity and Traceability x x x*

SA-12 (15) Supply Chain Protection / Process to Address Weaknesses or Deficiencies x x x

IR-4 (10) Incident Handling / Supply Chain Coordination x x x*

IR-6 (3) Supply Chain Protection / Incident Reporting / Coordination With Supply

Chain x x x*

SA-11 Developer Security Testing and Evaluation x x x*

SA-14 Criticality Analysis x x x*

SA-15 Development Process, Standards, and Tools x x x*

SI-7 Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity x x x*

CM-4 Security Impact x x x*

PM-16 Threat Awareness Program x x x

*Not required if there will be no procurement of hardware, firmware, or software systems.

C4. CYBER THREAT SECURITY PLAN

Handling of Non-Public Information: In performance of this Contract, the Contractor may have access to

Department of Defense (DoD) information. The Contractor agrees (a) to use and protect such information from unauthorized disclosure IAW DoD Instruction 8582.01: Security of Unclassified DoD Information on Non-DoD

Information Systems; (b) to use and disclose such information only for the purpose of performing this Contract and to not use or disclose such information for any personal or commercial purpose; (c) to comply with other current

Federal and DoD information protection and reporting requirements for specified categories of information (e.g., medical, proprietary, critical program information (CPI), personally identifiable information, export controlled); (d) to obtain permission of the Government Requiring Activity before disclosing/discussing such information with a third party; (e) to return and /or electronically purge, upon Government request, any DoD information no longer required for Contractor performance; and (f) to advise the OCO and COR of any unauthorized release of such information.

Cyber Threat Security Plan: In conjunction with the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS) Subpart 204.73, Safeguarding Unclassified Controlled Technical Information, DFARS Clause 252.204-

7012, Safeguarding unclassified controlled technical information, and DoD, DISA, NIST, and other Federal mandated regulations, instructions, procedures, and laws, the Contractor shall develop, submit, and implement upon approval a Cyber Threat Security Plan (plan).

The Contractor shall submit the plan 30 days after Contract award to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and

COR for acceptance. The PCO and COR have 10 working days to provide an acceptance or feedback to the

Contractor. If no written acceptance is received within the 10 working days, then the Contractor can consider the plan accepted. If the Contractor receives feedback within the 10 working days, then the Contractor has 10 working days to provide the PCO and COR an updated plan based on comments provided by the Government.

This plan shall be consistent with and further detail the approach contained in the Contractor’s proposal that resulted in the award of this Contract and in compliance with the requirements stated in the clause mentioned under this task.

This plan shall describe the processes and procedures that will be followed to ensure appropriate security of IT resources that are developed, processed, or used under this Contract. This plan shall contain the following:

• Vulnerability Management: evaluate network components, security procedures, and processes for potential exploitation from attack.

• Cyber Threat Intelligence: provide policy enforcement and end-point protection against unwarranted attacks on the network

• Analytics Monitoring: provide scalable analytics solution capable of combining potential risk indicators and developing leads

• Mitigation and Response: provide the process on how the threat will be mitigated and responded to upon discovery

• Lessons Learned and Action Plan: provide lessons learned and an action plan that will help all interested parties avoid repeated and similar attacks

• Subcontractors: explain how your subcontractors will be required to implement this requirement within their processes in support of this task.

Annually, anniversary date of acceptance of the plan, the Contractor shall submit verification to the PCO and COR that the plan remains valid.

It is intended that the Cyber Security Threat Plan is addressed at the ID/IQ Contract level. However, should a Task

Order specific Cyber Security Threat Plan be required,…