Attachment_8_Responses_to_DRAFT_RFP_Questions.pdf

DRAFT HC1047-18-R-4008

Presolicitation / Draft RFP Questions and Responses

Question # Questions / Comments RFP Reference Government Response RFP Change Required (Y/N)

Location of Change

1 Would you kindly confirm if this is an entirely new effort or is there an incumbent currently providing the services? If so, can you please provide the incumbent contract details?

None An amendment to the sources sought (Sources Sought References: MNIS03242017 and MNIS03242017-2) was posted on February 1, 2018 to direct those interested in this effort to the Presolicitation Notice and Draft RFP HC1047-18-R-4008. The Sources Sought Notice contains all incumbent information pertinent to this effort.

N None

2 My company Top Secret Facility clearance has been terminated due to a lack of classified contracts over a period of time. We have various past performance that supported similar requirements of the statement of work (SOW). Our assigned DSS ITSS, Industrial Security Specialist told us we can always return to NISP "National Industrial Security Program" once we are awarded another classified contract. The process can be expedited fairly quickly since our clearance has been terminated a little over a year. Could we submit a bid with those stipulations? Or, are you looking for a company with an active TOP SECRET level facility clearance?

None An active TOP SECRET level facility clearance is required for this effort. The TOP SECRET facility site clearance is required at the time proposals are due.

N None

3 Please clarify if past performance from a subcontractor NOT in a CTA arrangement is relevant and can be provided. Conflicting information appears to exist at L.5.1.2 (2nd paragraph) and M.2.3 Factor 2

Draft RFP P.79 L.5.1.2 and P.89 M.2.3

All references to "CTA" will be removed as it does not apply to this solicitation.

Information on up to one (1) recent Contract performed by an Offeror's significant teaming partners and significant subcontractos considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort may be submitted. The Government considers a significant subcontractor and or teaming partner to be a company who provides 20% or more of the support required, and/or a company who provides a critical portion of the effor required and/or influences the results of performance. References for proposed subcontractors not considered significant are no desired and will not be considered relevant.

Y RFP Section L.5..2

4 Please confirm that if a CTA arrangement is proposed that past performance from any Team Member can be presented as belonging to the CTA Entity as a whole.

Draft RFP P.79: L.5.1.2 All references to "CTA" will be removed as it does not apply to this solicitation. Please see question 3.

N None

5 Does the Government have a preference for a CTA arrangement over a traditional prime/sub relationship? Draft RFP P.79: L.5.1.2, second paragraph

All references to "CTA" will be removed as it does not apply to this solicitation.

The Government does not have a preference for a CTA arrangement over a traditional prime/sub relationship.

N None

6 Please clarify the MINIMUM number of Past Performances required from the Prime Draft RFP P.79: L.5.1.2 and P.89 M.2.3

The minimum number of Past Performances required from the Prime is two (2). N None

7 The Past Performance evaluation factors in Section M.2.3 differ slightly in language from the Offeror Instructions in Section L.5.1.2, which state that the Government will not evaluate past performance references from an Offeror's proposed subcontractors. We respectfully ask the Government to consider revising the evaluation criteria to reflect the Government's position that proposed subcontractor references will not be considered relevant.

L.5.1.2 (p. 79); M.2.3 (p.

89)

Information on up to one (1) recent Contract performed by an Offeror's significant teaming partners and significant subcontractos considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort may be submitted. The Government considers a significant subcontractor and or teaming partner to be a company who provides 20% or more of the support required, and/or a company who provides a critical portion of the effor required and/or influences the results of performance. References for proposed subcontractors not considered significant are no desired and will not be considered relevant.

Y RFP Section L.5..2

8 Can the government confirm that CONUS Replacement Center (CRC) training is to be provided by the Contractor instead of Contractor personnel using an existing CRC that the government operates?

PWS Section 9, Place of Performance, On-Site Support Afghanistan (p.20)

Yes - The Contractor is responsible for all personnel deploying in the CENTCOM AOR to provide CONUS Replacement Center (CRC) training at no cost to the Government.

N None

9 Section 10 of the PWS states that task orders may only extend for two years past expiration of IDIQ; however, Section F.3 states that task orders may not extend more than five years after the expiration of the IDIQ. Please clarify which is correct.

PWS Section 10, Period of Performance (p.22) & Section F.2, IDIQ Ordering Period (p.32) & Section I, 52-216-22, Indefinite Quantity (p.50)

The PWS Section 10, Period of Performance has been revised to reflect the Government's true intent and to be consistent with Section F.3 that task orders may not extend more than five years after the expiration of the IDIQ.

Y PWS Section 10, Period of Performance (p.22)

10 L.3.5.1 states that Sections A through K should be completed; however, only Section A (SF 33) and Section K contain fillable blanks.

Please verify that only completed Sections A and K need to be returned with the proposal.

Section L.3.5.1, Representations and Certifications (p.75)

L.3.5 Part E contains updated language that refers potential Offerors to the specific submission instructions for Sections A-K. Specifically, no submission is required for Sections B, F or G.

Y RFP Section L.3.5

11 We respectfully request that the government rephrase the first Key Personnel Requirment to state "15 years of direct experience over the last 20 years in managing systems, network engineering or IT functions in a federal government multinational environment."

Section C.13.1.a.i (p. 29) The Government has determined no change will be made. N None

12 We respectfully request that the government rephrase the second Key Personnel Requirment to state "15 years of direct experience over the last 20 years as a PM or senior technical project manager leading a globally-dispersed workforce on an IT system implementation ."

Section C.13.1.a.ii (p.

29)

The Government has determined no change will be made. N None

13 Please clarify the applicable contract types for this acquisition. Solicitation Section B.2 (Draft RFP page 2) states that “[c]ontract types permitted include FAR 16.2 Fixed-Price and FAR 16.3 Cost-Reimbursement”. Section B includes CLIN 9999, Surge Capability that is Cost Reimbursable. The Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Draft RFP pages 6 - 15) refers to Firm Fixed Price Tasks and Sub-Tasks. Solicitation Section L.1.1.1 (Draft RFP page 69) states that “[t]his Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for a Single Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Contract...” Section L requires the submission of Fixed Price Labor Rates. Solicitation provision 52.216-1 (Draft RFP page 84) states that “[t]he Government contemplates award of a Hybrid Single Award IDIQ, Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) for Labor and Cost Reimbursable for Travel, Other Direct Costs (ODCs) and Surge, contract resulting from this solicitation”. Section M addresses the evaluation of the offeror’s Fixed Price Labor Rates.

Page 2, Section B.2 The Government contemplates award of a Hybrid Single Award IDIQ, Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) for Labor and Cost Reimbursable for Travel, Other Direct Costs (ODCs) and Surge, contract resulting from this solicitation.

N None

14 Please verify whether the Government contemplates issuing multi-year Task Orders in accordance with FAR 17.1, as indicated in Solicitation Section B.2 (Draft RFP page 2), or multiple year Task Orders.

Page 2, Section B.2 Each Task Order will have a single base period of up to 12 months with a potential for a maximum of four one-year optional periods. RFP Section B.2 is revised to remove reference of multiple year Task Orders.

Y RFP Section B.2

15 PWS Section 10 (Draft RFP page 22) states that “[t]he performance period for each Task Order may extend two years beyond the expiration date of the IDIQ”; however, Solicitation Section F.3(3) (Draft RFP page 32) states that “[n]o Task Orders may extend more than five years after the expiration of the IDIQ Contract”. Please resolve this inconsistency.

Page 22, Section 10 The PWS Section 10, Period of Performance has been revised to reflect the Government's true intent and be consistent with Section F.3 that task orders may not extend more than five years after the expiration of the IDIQ.

Y PWS Section 10, Period of Performance (p.22)

16 Please verify the applicability of both Solicitation Section H.2, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (Draft RFP page 39), and Solicitation provision 52.209-9000, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (Draft RFP page 43), to this acquisition.

Page 39 and Page 43 Section H refers potential Offerors to Solicitation Provision 52.209-9000. N None

17 Please verify the applicability of Solicitation provision 52.217-9 (Draft RFP page 51) to this Solicitation since no options to extend the term of the contract beyond five years are contemplated. That fact is confirmed in paragraph (c) of that clause which states that “[t]he total duration of this Basic Contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed five (5) years from the date of award”. It is understood that a six-month option to extend services is included in the Solicitation.

Page 51 FAR 52.217-9 was included to flow down to the Task Orders where options can be included.

N None

18 Please clarify the meaning of the second sentence in Solicitation provision 252.216-7006 (Draft RFP page 53) which states that “[s]uch orders may be issued from five (5) years after date of award for a five year ordering period.”

Page 53 Period of performance under this IDIQ contract is a five (5) year ordering period. After the IDIQ ordering period expires, the IDIQ Contract will remain an active Contract until the final Task Order performance is completed and shall govern the terms and conditions with respect to active Task Orders to the same extent as if it were completed during the IDIQ Contract ordering period. Under no circumstances may a Task Order be placed under the IDIQ Contract if the IDIQ Contract has expired or been terminated. Task Orders may be issued during the IDIQ five-year ordering period and such Task Orders may extend no more than five years after the expiration of the IDIQ.

Y Solicitation Provision DFARS 252.216-7006

19 Please verify the consistency between PWS Sections 12.1 and 12.2 (Draft RFP page 26) which state that “[t]he work to be performed under this Contract is up to the Top Secret level and will require Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access eligibility for some personnel. Therefore, the company must have an interim or final Top Secret Facility Clearance from the Defense Security Service Facility Clearance Branch” and “[c]ontractor personnel must possess the interim or final security clearance and interim or final IT-level eligibility delineated in the table below when performance starts”, respectively, and Solicitation Section L.1.1.2 (Draft RFP page 69) which states that “[a] Top Secret Facility Site Clearance is required for this solicitation and contract...The work to be performed under this contract is up to the Top Secret (TS) level and will require Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access eligibility for some personnel, to include subcontractors and Independent Consultants. Personnel requiring TS/SCI clearance must possess a current FINAL TS/SCI security clearance granted by the U.S. Government. The Top Secret Facility Site Clearance is required at the time proposals are due” (all emphasis added).

Section 12.1 and 12.2, The Top Secret Facility Site Clearance is required at the time proposals are due. N None

20 Consistent with the restriction on the use of internet links in Solicitation Section L.2.2.1 (Draft RFP page 72) which states that “[p]age limitations shall not be circumvented by including inserted text boxes/pop-ups or internet links to additional information;

such inclusions are not acceptable and will not be considered part of the proposal”, it is recommended that in Solicitation Section L.2.0.3 (draft RFP page 70), internet hyperlinks be prohibited rather than be designated as being “not desired” in order to ensure that there is no manipulation or inconsistency in the application of the Solicitation’s proposal page limitations.

Section L.2.2.1 and L.2.0.3 pages 72 and 70

Deleted "internet hyperlinks" from L.2.0.3 as internet links were addressed in L.2.2.1. Y RFP Section L.2.0.3

21 Please clarify the first sentence in the third paragraph of Solicitation Section L.2.4 (Draft RFP page 74) which states that “[t]he content and page size of electronic copies must be described in Section L”. Should that instead read: “The content and page size of electronic copies must be as described in Section L”?

Page 74 Revised to state "The content and page size of electronic copies must be as described in Section L."

Y RFP Section L.2.4

22 Please correct the inconsistency in the number of files identified in Solicitation Section L.2.4 (Draft RFP page 74) for Proposal Volume III

Page 74 Revised to state that Volume III shall be sent as four filse labeled as follows in Section L.2.4.

Y RFP Section L.2.4

23 Please resolve the inconsistencies between Solicitation Section L.3.1.1(5) (Draft RFP page 75) which states that “[a]ll Offerors must be registered in SAM at the time the proposal is submitted and at the time of award” and Solicitation Section L.3.5.8 (Draft RFP page

76) which states that “[t]he Contracting Officer will check the System for Award Management (SAM) for those Offerors who have been determined to be within the competitive range. Offerors who are not registered in SAM will be advised of the need to register.

An Offeror may be determined ineligible for contract award if not registered within SAM at time of award”.

Page 75 Revised to state that an Offeror shall be determined ineligible for contract award if not registered within SAM at time the proposal is submitted and at the time of award.

Y RFP Section L.3.5.8

24 Please correct the inconsistencies in the Volume Organization/Part listings in Solicitation Sections L.4.2.2, L.4.2.2.2, and L.4.2.2.3 (Draft RFP page 77).

Page 77 Revised to reflect consistent naming for Part B and Part C. RFP Section 4.2.2

25 Solicitation Section L.4.2.2.3 (Draft RFP page 77) states that “[t]he Offeror’s Technical/Management approach should describe the capabilities to execute all tasks specified in Section 6 of the attached Performance Work Statement (PWS); however, the three Technical Sub-factors identify three specific sub-sections in Section 6 (i.e., 6.4, 6.1, and 6.2). Please verify whether the offerors are required to address the entirety of Section 6, or just the three designated sub-sections. If the entirety of Section 6 must be addressed, please clarify where in the proposal those additional sections should be addressed.

Page 77 The Offeror should affirm that the overall technical/management approach and capabilities will successfully meet all requirements to execute all tasks specified in Section 6 of the PWS. However, the three subfactors identified will be used to evaluate the proposal.

N RFP Section L.4.2.2.3

26 Please resolve the inconsistencies between the “minimum qualifications” that are required for the Contract Program Manager listed in PWS Section 13.1 (Draft RFP page 28) and Solicitation Section L.4.2.2.3.2 (Draft RFP page 78).

Page 28 and 78 RFP Section L.4.2.2.3.2 and M.2.2.2 are revised to reflect the minimum qualifications listed in PWS Section 13.1

Y RFP Section L.4.2.2.3.2 and M.2.2.2

27 In Section L.6.1 (Draft RFP page 81) should not the Government also be requiring the submission (and evaluation in accordance with Section M) of the realism of the offerors’ proposed Labor Rates since in many service contract solicitations, some offerors propose Labor Rates that are unrealistically low, and if realism is not evaluated, it may unfairly skew the results of the Price Factor evaluation?

Page 81 This is a hybrid contract with FFP labor CLINs being awarded by Best Value - Tradeoff.

The Government anticipates adequate competition for this effort. Section M of the price factor will evaluate reasonableness, completeness, and balanced pricing.

28 In Solicitation Section L.6.2.2 (Draft RFP page 83), please clarify the meaning of the sentence in the CLIN 9999 paragraph which states that “[t]he Government will not conduct a cost realism analysis on Optional Surge CLIN 9999 if all other labor CLINs under the contract/Task Order is firm-fixed price”.

Page 83 There will be no cost realism analysis of the Surge or any other CLINs.

29 In Solicitation Section M.1.2 (Draft RFP page 86), please clarify the meaning of the sentence which states that “[i]n the event issues pertaining to a proposed Contract cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the solicitation”. In such a case, why would the Government “withdraw” and not make the award to the second best value offeror rather than cancel the entire Solicitation?

Page 86 The Contracting Officer will follow the stated evaluation plan. Only in unusual circumstances would the solicitation be cancelled.

N None

30 Please clarify why the Government’s evaluation process will not include a rating for the Technical/Management Approach Factor, and how the absence of a rating for that Factor correlates with the relative order of importance of the Evaluation Factors as set forth in Solicitation Section M.2.1.2 (Draft RFP page 86), and the requirements of FAR 15.304(d), if the Technical/Management Approach Factor will not be rated. How will the relative order of importance of the Technical/Management Approach Sub-factors relate to the relative importance of the Past Performance and Price Factors? Without a Technical/Management Approach Factor rating, how will the Source Selection Authority (SSA) apply the relative importance of the Evaluation Factors in making his/her best value trade-off analysis and determination?

Additionally, it is noted that Solicitation Section M.2.1.2 (Draft RFP page 86), states that “[t]he Factors are listed in descending order of importance” and “[t]he Non-Price Factors are listed in order of descending importance”. Please clarify those two apparently different descriptions of the Basis for Award.

Page 86 Revised to state the following: The relative importance of each Factor and Subfactor is as follows. The Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Among the three Subfactors, Subfactor 1 is the most important, followed by Subfactor 2 and then Subfactor

3. The Subfactors will not be rolled up to one overall rating. The Subfactors are considered more important than Past Performance.

The Non-Price Factors are listed in order of descending importance. This means that Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach with each Subfactor is more important than Factor 2:

Past Performance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), when combined the Technical/Management Approach Factor and the Past Performance Factor are significantly more important than the Price Factor.

Y RFP Section M.2.1.2

31 Please clarify the inconsistencies between Solicitation Section L.5.1.2 (Draft RFP page 79) which states that “[r]eferences for proposed subcontractors are not desired and will not be considered relevant” and Solicitation Section M.2.3 (Draft RFP page 89) which states that “[i]nformation on up to one (1) recent Contract performed by an Offeror’s significant teaming partners/subcontractors and significant subcontractors considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort may be submitted. The Government considers a significant subcontractor and/or teaming partner to be a company who provides 20% or more of the support required, and or a company who provides a critical portion of the effort required and/or influences the results of performance”.

Page 89 Information on up to one (1) recent Contract performed by an Offeror's significant teaming partners and significant subcontractos considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort may be submitted. The Government considers a significant subcontractor and or teaming partner to be a company who provides 20% or more of the support required, and/or a company who provides a critical portion of the effor required and/or influences the results of performance. References for proposed subcontractors not considered significant are no desired and will not be considered relevant.

Y RFP Section L.5..2 and RFP Section M.2.3

32 Please revise Solicitation Section M.4.7 (Draft RFP page 93) to clarify that only a single award will be made. That provision currently refers to awarding “Contracts to the Offerors with the most advantageous proposals to the Government.”

Page 93 RFP Section M.4.7 has been revised to clarify that only a single award will be made. Y RFP Section M.4.7

33 In F.5. Task Order Transition Plans, the government states the need for the incumbent Contractor to provide the Government a transition out plan for the task orders. However, the government does not mention anything regarding a transition in period for this solicitation in the event the incumbent is not the awardee. If the incumbent is not selected as the awardee, does the MNIS PMO anticipate adding a transition in period for this solicitation for the current task orders? If so, what is the anticipated duration of the transition in period?

Page 32, Section F - Deliveries and Performance./F.5. Task Order Transition Plans

If time allows and transition is needed, the Government reserves the right to include a transition period.

N None

34 In this section, the Government provides plug numbers for travel and ODCs. Do the Government provided plug numbers for ODCs include the ODCs for relocation, quarters allowance, DBA, Cost of Living Allowance, Hazardous Duty Pay and other ODC type entitlements? If yes, vendors do not have to bid these entitlements in their cost proposal?

Page 83, Section L.6.2.2, Part B - Price Summary Spreadsheet

At the IDIQ level the Government has provided plug figures for travel and ODCs; therefore, the entitelments referenced do not have to be proposed at the IDIQ level.

N None

35 In Section L.5.1.2, the Government states that "Note: Single-Award IDIQs or BPAs (single-award) may be submitted as one past performance reference if all Task/Call Orders are described and presented." Section M.2. 3, Factor 2, states that "(Note: Individual Task/Call Orders under an IDIQ Contract, GSA Schedule Contract, or BPA are each considered to be one (1) past / present performance effort.)" Please clarify which statement is correct? Will the Government allow a vendor to use as one reference a single award ID/IQ contract that has multiple task orders?

Page 79. Section L.5.1.2 Past Performance Information for Recent and Relevent Contracts and Page 89, Section M.2.3 Factor 2: Past Performance

We will use the IDIQ and all associated Task Orders as a single reference. RFP Section M.2.3 has been revised to state that Single-Award IDIQs or BPAs (single-award) may be submitted as one past performance reference if all Task/Call Orders are described and presented.

Y RFP Section M.2.3

36 This section of the DD254 states the COR/ACOR and the Contractor will determine the number of personnel required to have access to SCI. To better allow vendors to plan for and provide the requsite workforce requiring SCI access, can the Government provide details on either the historical numbers and labor categories requireing SCI access or provide the numbers and labor categories on the current contract that require SCI access?

DD254, Page 4, Reference Block 10(e)

(1) (a)

There are approximately 70 personnel holding SCI access at this time. The MPE - Network Engineering Services RFP is larger in scope than the current effort; therefore, the SCI access requirement may increase. SCI access will vary based on each Task Order's requirements.

N None

37 It appears from these sections the vendor will be responsible for procuring material on this contract. Can the Government provide the estimated dollar amount or percentage of materials the vendor could be procuring?

Page 7, Section 4, Objectives, 4.6, "Supply the hardware integral to these network

No - In terms of the proposal, all Offerors should propose to the Governemnt provided estimated figures.

N None

38 Does the government anticipate adding specific vendor requirements to the prime offeror based on the supplying of “the hardware integral to these network engineers in and related services? For example, a total dollar threshold in equipment sales to the government, to or to not include large technical refreshes, integration or installation services, etc.?

Page 7, Section 4, Objectives, 4.6, "Supply the hardware integral to these network engineering and related services" and Page 14, Section 6.5, Task 5, Supply Chain Risk Management ("Contractor shall submit a SCRM plan as part of its techncial proposal.")

No. The Government does not specify the vendors a Contractor must use. N None

39 Would the government allow the SCRM requested by the government, and provided by the Prime offeror to not be counted within the Technical Volume page count?

Page 71 and not included in L.2.2 Table 1.1

Yes - Section L.4.2.2.4 is added to address the Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan.

Y RFP Section L.2.2, Table 1.1, Section L.2.4, Section L.4.2.2 and Section L.4.2.2.4

40 In order for vendors to better understand the size and scope of the networks being supported on the current contract, can the Government provide a list of the types of hardware and software being supported?

Page 7, Section 4, Objectives, 4.6, "Supply the hardware integral to these network

These vary with individual CCMD or other DoD customer task orders. N None

41 In this task, the Government states the requirement of "The Contractor shall review system engineering analyses and monitor system operations to recommend procurement and maintenance requirements for life cycle support and equipment recapitalization." Can the Government provide information regarding anticipated life cycle support and equipment recapitalization required? Additional question would also be, What is the average age of the equipment currently in service?

Page 10, 6.2, Task 2 - Systems Administration,

6.2.1 Subtask 1 - Systems

Engineering and Development Support.

Part A. As stated the Contractor shall review system engineering analyses and monitor system operations to recommend procurement and maintenance requirements for life cycle support and equipment recapitalization. Part B. This should be part of the engineering analysis and provided to the Task Order PM with recommendations/courses of action.

N None

42 Can the Government provide any information on required or agreed to Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that are in effect on the current contract? If there are SLAs, does the Government anticipate SLAs on the new contract? If so, what are they?

Page 10, 6.2, Task 2 - Systems Administration.

The successful Offeror must meet the performance standards as identified in the task order-level PWS and QASP.

N None

43 Can the Government provide information regarding network management tools being used to perform this task on the current contract?

Page 12, 6.2.8, Subtask 8

- Network Management.

These tools vary with individual CCMD or other DoD customer task orders. N None

44 Can the Government provide information regarding the cyber security/information assurance tools being used to perform this task on the current contract?

Page 12, 6.3, Task 3 - Security Services.

These tools vary with individual CCMD or other DoD customer task orders. N None

45 Does the Government see the vendor providing defense services to Mission Partners? If so, will the Government support vendor efforts to obtain the proper documentation/export licenses (i.e. signing an ITAR exemption until final documentation is approved)?

Solicitation

HC104718R4008.

No. N None

46 Does the Government anticipate any Foreign Military Sales requirements? Solicitation

HC104718R4008.

No. N None

47 Would the government consider adding an additional 20 pages to Part D Technical/ Management Approaach page limitations? Page 71, Section L.2.2 Table 1.1

No N None

Q and A