Attachment_9_Responses_to_RFP_Questions_Amendment_01.pdf

HC1047-18-R-4008

ATTACHMENT 9 - Responses to RFP Questions

Question # Questions / Comments RFP Reference Government Response

RFP

Change

Required (Y/N)

Location of Change

1 1) Please clarify the applicable contract types for this acquisition.

Solicitation Section B.2, Task Order Contract Types (RFP page 2) states that “Task Order Contract types permitted include FAR 16.2 Fixed-Price and FAR

16.3 Cost-Reimbursement”. Section B (RFP page 5) includes CLIN 9999, Surge Capacity, that is Cost Reimbursable. Solicitation provision 52.216-1, Type of Contract (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”. This language mirrors that in Question and Answer #13. Solicitation Section L.1.1.1 (RFP page 69), however, states that “[t]his Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for a Single Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Contract...” Based upon the first three Solicitation references and Question and Answer #13, it appears that Solicitation Section L.1.1.1 is inaccurate as written.

Solicitation Section B.2 and L.1.1.1

The Government has revised Section L.1.1.1 for consistency purposes only to identify FFP for Labor and Cost Reimbursable for Travel, ODCs and Surge.

Y RFP Section L.1.1.1

2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 6.1.3, Subtask 3, and PWS Section 6.1.4, Subtask 4 (RFP page 9), describe the Monthly Contract Program Reviews and the Monthly Task Order Review requirements. Please clarify the difference between these two requirements since they appear to reflect essentially the same content.

PWS Section 6.1.3, Subtask 3 and Section 6.1.4, Subtask 4

The Monthly Contract Program Review is for this IDIQ contract. The Monthly Task Order Review is for individual Task Orders, if included as a deliverable by the Task Order level PWS.

N None

3 Reference PWS Section 6.1.5, Subtask 5, and PWS Section 6.2.5, Subtask

5. In order to reduce operational continuity through Transition Period, would the government consider a Transition Out Plan with Documentation signed off by the government to include at a minimum all Configuration items such as Drawings, Software Configurations and Baselines, Network topologies with associated Layer 2/3 information, Hardware Inventories and associated Lifecycle stage / Warranty information and locations of the hardware and any other CIs deemed necessary by the government.

PWS Section 6.1.5, Subtask 5 and PWS Section 6.2.5 Subtask 5

The Transition Out Plans will vary by Task Order. The specific requirements of each Transition Out Plan will be agreed to by the KO, TO Lead and the Contractor. The current contract does not have a Transition Out Plan requirement.

N None

4 PWS Section 6.5, Task 5, Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) (RFP page 14), indicates that, among other requirements, the Contract/Task Orders are subject to internal DISA SCRM Processes and Procedures. Please provide the offerors with all of the relevant information regarding the internal DISA SCRM Processes and Procedures.

PWS Section 6.5, Task

The DISA DISA SCRM Processes and Procedures are classified as FOUO.

Therefore, in accordance with PWS Section 6.5, Task 5, the Contractor shall submit a SCRM plan as part of its technical proposal which are subject to Federal SCRM policies and regulations which will subsequently be finalized and updated upon Contract award.

N None

5 PWS Section 12.1, Facility Security Clearance (RFP page 26), states 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.” Solicitation Section L.1.1.2 (RFP page 69) states that “[t]he Top Secret Facility Site Clearance is required at the time proposals are due.” Please clarify if that is either an Interim or Final clearance.

PWS Section 12.1, Solicitation Section L.1.1.2

The Government is confirming that the PWS language is correct and revisions are made to RFP Section L.1.1.2 is revised to state that an Interim or Final Top Secret Facility Site Clearance is required at the time proposals are due.

Y RFP Section L.1.1.2

6 PWS Section 12.2, Security Clearance and Information Technology (IT) Level (RFP page 26), states that “[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”, however, Solicitation Section L.1.1.2 (RFP page 69) states that “[p]ersonnel requiring TS/SCI clearance must possess a current FINAL TS/SCI security clearance granted by the U.S.

Government”. Please resolve this apparent inconsistency, and verify when the offeror’s personnel must have the required clearance.

PWS Section 12.2, Solicitation Section L.1.1.2

The Government is confirming that the PWS language is correct and revisions are made to RFP Section L.1.1.2 is revised to state that personnel requiring TS/SCI clearance must possess a current Interim or Final Top Secret Clearance.

Y RFP Section L.1.1.2

7 Please verify the applicability of both Solicitation Section H.2, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, DARS 52-209-9000 (RFP page 38), and Solicitation provision 52.209-9000, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (RFP page 42) since the proposal-related requirements in those provisions appear to be inconsistent. Specifically, the first provision states that “[a]n Offeror shall identify in its proposal, quote, bid or any resulting contract, any potential or actual Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (OCCI) as described in FAR Subpart 9.5, if applicable. The Offeror shall provide an affirmation statement that no OCI exists; or, if applicable, submit an OCI plan that identifies any potential or actual Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (OCCI) as described in FAR Subpart 9.5”; the second provision states that “[a]n offeror shall identify in its proposal, quote, bid or any resulting contract, any potential or actual Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (OCCI) as described in FAR Subpart 9.5. This includes actual or potential conflicts of interests of proposed subcontractors.

If an offeror identifies in its proposal, quote, bid or any resulting contract, a potential or actual conflict of interest the offeror shall submit an Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest Mitigation Plan to the contracting officer” (emphasis added). Please confirm whether the “affirmation statement that no OCI exists” is required for all offerors.

Solicitation Section H.2 and Solicitation provision 52.209-9000

Reference to Section H.2 "Organizational And Consultant Conflicts of Interest (OCCI) has been removed. Please refer to DARS clause 52.209-9000.

Y RFP Section H.2

8 Solicitation Section L.2.2, Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits, Table

1.1 - Proposed Organization (RFP page 71), indicates that there are no page limits for the Executive Summary, however, Solicitation Section L.4.2.2.2, Part B - Executive Summary (RFP page 77), states that the Executive Summary should be “concise.” Please clarify what is intended by the term “concise” in light of there being no page limits for the Executive Summary.

Please confirm that there will be no negative evaluation consequences for an offeror associated with a Government determination that an offeror’s Executive Summary was not “concise.” Additionally, the Govt has no page limitation with respect to the executive summary. Given the exec summary is not an evaluated factor, will the Govt consider restricting the page limitation to 2 pages to ensure an over-all streamlined evaluation.

Solicitation Section L.2.2, and L.4.2.2.2, Part B

The Government has revised Section L.2.2 to include a 2 page limitation to the Executive Summary. Furthermore, as a 2 page limitation has been added, the term "consise" in Section L.4.2.2.2 has been removed.

Y RFP Sections L.2.2 and L.4.2.2.2 Part B

9 Solicitation Section L.4.2.2.3, Part C - Technical/Management Approach (RFP page 77), requires that “[t]he Offeror’s Technical/Management approach should affirm the capabilities to execute all tasks specified in Section 6 of the attached Performance Work Statement (PWS). It should clearly describe the approach to fully meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS ...The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate a complete understanding of the scope, objectives, and taskings outlined in the IDIQ PWS , and their plan to meet or exceed the tasks and subtasks from Section 6 of the PWS. The Offerors will be evaluated on their responses to the below PWS Tasks” (emphasis added). (See also Solicitation Sections M.2.2.1, M.2.2.2, M.2.2.3 (RFP pages 88-89), which refer to the offeror demonstrating their understanding of “the scope, objectives and taskings outlined in the overarching IDIQ PWS ”.) It is noted that Question and Answer #25 states that “[t]he 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”. Please resolve this apparent inconsistency, particularly in light of the limited number of pages that have been allocated for the offeror’s Technical/Management Approach proposal. Is it the Government’s intent that the offerors must simply “affirm” their ability/agreement to meet each of the PWS requirements in their Technical/Management Approach proposal, and specifically address the individual PWS Sections identified in Solicitation Sections L.4.2.2.3.1, L.4.2.2.3.2, and L.4.2.2.3.3 (RFP page 78)?

Solicitation Section L.4.2.2.3, Part C;

L.4.2.2.3.1; L.4.2.2.3.2;

L.4.2.2.3.3; and Solicitation Sections M.2.2.1, M.2.2.2, M.2.2.3

Yes. The Offeror is to affirm their ability to meet all of the requirements of the entire PWS. The Offeror need only specifically address the individual PWS sections that are part of the evaluation factors.

N None

10 Please clarify what is intended by the requirement in Solicitation Section L.4.2.2.3.2 (RFP page 78) for the offerors to provide a “generic” resume for the Contract Program Manager.

Solicitation Section L.4.2.2.3.2 (RFP page 78)

The Government is requesting a generic resume that will encompass the standards of the key personnel to fill this position. Put another way, the Government does not require a named individual.

N None

11 Please resolve the inconsistencies between the responsibilities of, and the “minimum qualifications” required for, the Contract Program Manager listed in PWS Section 13.1(a) (RFP page 29), Solicitation Section L.4.2.2.3.2 (RFP page 78), Solicitation Section M.2.2.2 (RFP page 89), and Attachment 2, Labor Categories. For the Contract Program Manager’s responsibilities, PWS Section 13.1(a) includes an additional phrase “and as required by the MNIS PMO for emergent issues”. Although that phrase is also included in Attachment 2, Attachment 2 includes a further requirement that the Contract Program Manager have “experience managing systems, network engineering, IT systems implementations or IT functions in a federal government or multinational environment” that is similar to subparagraphs i. and ii. in the other three references, although those other references require experience as “a PM or senior technical project manager on an IT system implementation”.

Attachment 2 also indicates that an “equivalent” to a Bachelor’s Degree is acceptable. To eliminate any potential confusion, it is respectfully requested that the same requirements for the Contract Program Manager be specified in all four Solicitation references. Please also explain, or provide examples of, what would be “equivalent” to a Bachelor’s Degree.

PWS Section 13.1(a) (RFP page 29), Solicitation Section L.4.2.2.3.2 (RFP page 78), Solicitation Section M.2.2.2 (RFP page 89), and Attachment 2, Labor Categories, and PWS Section 13.1(a)

An Offeror must propose to the requirements in the Performance Work Statement, Section L and Section M, which are the same.

N None

12 Solicitation Section L.5.1.2, Past Performance Information for Recent and Relevant Contracts (RFP page 80), states that “[t]he 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 ” (emphasis added). Please clarify which elements of the effort are considered “critical”, as well as the distinction between providing an effort that is “required” and one that would be considered as “influenc[ing] the results of performance”.

Solicitation Section L.5.1.2, Past Performance Information for Recent and Relevant Contracts (RFP page 80)

The Government has revised the definition to state that "the Government considers a significant subcontractor and/or teaming partner to be a company who provides 20% or more of the support required".

Y RFP Sections L.5.1.2 and M.2.3

13 Solicitation Section L.5.1.2, Past Performance Information for Recent and Relevant Contracts (RFP page 80), states that “[s]imilar contracts may include efforts in a variety of sizes, a variety of disciplines, and varying degrees of technical complexity.” Please explain the intent of this sentence.

Are you indicating that there could be a wide array of efforts that the Government would conclude are “similar” and, therefore, relevant? Additionally, this provision also states that “[s]imilar efforts should demonstrate as many of the task area types included in the PWS...as possible”. Does this mean that a single effort which addresses multiple areas is considered to be more relevant/given more credit than multiple efforts with a single focus area that cumulatively cover the same scope of work?

Solicitation Section L.5.1.2, Past Performance Information for Recent and Relevant Contracts (RFP page 80)

There could be a wide array of efforts that the Government could conclude are similar. It is the Offeror's responsibility to include rationale supporting the assertion of relevance. The Past Performance Evaluation team will review all of the Past Performance Information References (which shall not exceed three) to determine the overall rating at the Factor level, as it applies to the Performance Confidence Assessment. All things being equal, a single effort that contains many PWS task efforts is more similar to this effort than multiple efforts with a single task area each.

N None

14 In Solicitation Section L.6.1, General Instructions (RFP page 81), and Solicitation Section L.6.2.1, Part A, Price Narrative (RFP page 83), should not the Government also be requiring the submission (and evaluation in accordance with Section M) of data demonstrating 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? We understand that Question and Answer # 27 states that “[t]his 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”, however, it is respectfully requested that the Government consider evaluating the realism of the offerors’ proposed Labor Rates (i.e., whether or not they are too low), for the reasons set forth above. If the Government does not intend to conduct a realism analysis, what mechanism will be employed to ensure a competitor is not submitting unrealistic Labor Rates that may compromise the integrity of the evaluation and/or pose a significant risk to contract performance?

Solicitation Section L.6.1, General Instructions (RFP page 81), and Solicitation Section L.6.2.1, Part A, Price Narrative (RFP page 83)

The Government anticipates adequate competition for this Best Value Tradeoff effort whereby price is the least important factor. Section M of the price factor will evaluate reasonableness, completeness, and balanced pricing. Offerors shall perform Task Orders at labor rates that are equal to or below its proposed ceiling rates in its IDIQ contract. Cost Realism Analysis will not be conducted.

N None

15 In Solicitation Section M.1.3, Evaluation of Options (RFP page 87), please clarify the following portion of this provision which states that “[t]he total evaluated price will consist of the Contractor’s proposed prices for each of the Task Orders’ periods of performance including the pricing for the additional six-month period. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices or Task Order prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s)” (emphasis added). Should the references to the “Task Orders’ periods of performance”, the “option prices” and the “Task Order prices” instead be to the IDIQ Contract period of performance, and the prices for each of the five IDIQ Contract years, as well as the single six-month option?

Solicitation Section M.1.3, Evaluation of Options (RFP page 87)

The IDIQ Contract resulting from this solicitation is intended to be a five-year ordering period without options. Task Orders will each specify a particular period of performance and may include options for additional periods of performance.

Notwithstanding the lack of options on the IDIQ, the Government will include FAR clause 52.217-8 as part of the Contract award.Should the Government make use of FAR 52.217-8, it would have the ability to extend the Contract ordering period or any of the Task Orders’ periods of performance for up to six additional months.

The Government has revised Section M.1.3 to clarify the evaluation of options for the IDIQ contract and evaluation of options at the Task Order level.

Y RFP Section M.1.3

16 Solicitation Section M.2.1.1 (RFP page 87) indicates that the three Technical/Management Approach subfactors “are considered more important than Past Performance.” Does this mean that each of the three Subfactors individually is more important than the Past Performance Factor, or that the three Subfactors combined are more important than the Past Performance Factor?

Solicitation Section M.2.1.1 (RFP page 87)

The Government has revised RFP Section M.2.1.1 to clarify the following: The three Subfactors in Factor 1 : "Technical/Management Approach" will not be rolled up to one overall rating . Among the three Subfactors, Subfactor 1 is the most important, followed by Subfactor 2 and then Subfactor 3. Each of the Subfactors individually are considered more important than the Past Performance Factor.

Y RFP Section M.2.1.1

17 Solicitation Section M.2.1.2, Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors (RFP page 87), states that “[t]he Factors are listed in descending order of importance”, “[t]he Non-Price Factors are listed in order of descending importance”, and that “when combined the Technical/Management Approach Factor and the Past Performance Factor are significantly more important than the Price Factor”. Please clarify the relative importance of the Past Performance Factor and the Price Factor, individually.

Solicitation Section M.2.1.2, Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors (RFP page 87)

The Government has revised RFP Section M.2.1.1 to clarify the following: The three Subfactors in Factor 1 : "Technical/Management Approach" will not be rolled up to one overall rating . Among the three Subfactors, Subfactor 1 is the most important, followed by Subfactor 2 and then Subfactor 3. The Subfactors individually are considered more important than Factor 2: "Past Performance".

Factor 1 and Factor 2 individually are more important than Factor 3 : "Price".

Y RFP Section M.2.1.1

18 Since Solicitation Section M.2.1.2, Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors (RFP page 87), states that “[t]he Subfactors will not be rolled up to one overall [Technical/Management Approach Factor] rating, please explain how the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will apply the relative importance of the Evaluation Factors and Technical/Management Approach Subfactors in making his/her best value trade-off analysis and determination?

Since Solicitation Section M.2.1.2, Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors (RFP page 87)

The three Subfactors in Factor 1 : "Technical/Management Approach" will not be rolled up to one overall rating . Among the three Subfactors, Subfactor 1 is the most important, followed by Subfactor 2 and then Subfactor 3. The Subfactors are considered more important than Factor 2: "Past Performance".

Factor 1 and Factor 2 are more important than Factor 3 : "Price".

N None

19 In Solicitation Sections M.2.2.1, M.2.2.2, and M.2.2.3 (the three Technical/Management Approach Subfactors) (RFP pages 88-89), please verify the accuracy of the sentences that state “demonstrate a clear approach and understanding [or “complete understanding” or “clear understanding”] of the scope, objectives and taskings outlined in the overarching IDIQ PWS ” (emphasis added). Since these Subfactors are focused upon specific PWS Sections, please explain why it is necessary/applicable to demonstrate understanding of the scope, objectives and taskings outlined in the overarching IDIQ PWS. ”

Solicitation Sections M.2.2.1, M.2.2.2, and M.2.2.3 (the three Technical/Management Approach Subfactors) (RFP pages 88-89)

While the Subfactors are focused upon specific PWS Sections, the Offerors must demonstrate these capabilities as it relates to their understanding of the overarching IDIQ PWS.

N None

20 Solicitation Section M.4.1, Responsibility and Compliance Review (RFP page 93), states that “[t]he Government will review proposals for responsibility and compliancy. Any Offeror determined to be non-responsive or non-complian[t] may be removed from further consideration” (emphasis added). Please verify whether the reference in the second sentence should be “non-responsible” rather than “non-responsive.”

Solicitation Section M.4.1, Responsibility and Compliance Review (RFP page 93)

Non-responsive. N None

21 Solicitation Section M.4.3, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) (RFP page 93) states that “[t]he SSEB will therefore prepare summary reports containing adjectival assessments for each factor and their supporting rationale, including the costs/prices for each Offeror and brief the SSAC” (emphasis added). Since only the Technical/Management Approach Subfactors will be evaluated and rated, should this sentence instead refer to “each factor and subfactor”?

Solicitation Section M.4.3, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) (RFP page 93)

The Government has revised Section M.4.3 to clarify that the SSEB will prepare summary reports containing adjectival assessments, and their supporting rationale, for each Technical Subfactor and the Past Perfomance Factor. These summary reports will also include the costs/prices for each Offeror and will be briefed to the SSAC.

Y RFP Section M.4.3

22 The Solicitation states "The performance period for each Task Order (TO) may extend five years beyond the expiration date of the IDIQ. TOs shall be priced according to the negotiated rates agreed upon for each applicable contract year for the TO’s period of performance." What pricing information will be used to award a TO within the last option year of the contract, that potentially includes 5 options? i.e. TO placed in FY23 (last year of POP) that contains a POP extending into 2028, but you are only requesting pricing information until 2023.

Also mentioned on pg 50 of the solicitation, "ten (10) years after date of award."

L.6.1.2 For Task Orders issued in the last period of performance (PoP) and have options that extend beyond the IDIQ expiration, labor rates proposed for the last PoP are subject to the ceiling rates in the IDIQ contract. Rates proposed for the out years will be evaluated based upon whether or not the escalation rates used to propose the out years rates are reasonable.

N None

23 52.217-8 pricing is usually included as an "option" Clin, as this clause requires written notification per 52.217-9 of the Governments intent to exercise a 6 month extension. Will the government add the -8 pricing estimate for Labor, ODCs and Travel as seperate option clins? As stated on pg 82 " The pricing proposal should include separate line items for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8." As stated on pg 82 " The pricing proposal should include separate line items for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8."

Solicitation Page 82 The Contractor is to propose the 6-month extension period, in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.217-8, for the IDIQ contract as noted in multiple locations in the RFP. If the 6-month optional CLINs are exercised IAW FAR 52.217-8, these optional CLINs will be added to the IDIQ contract at the time they are exercised.

The Task Orders may or may not include the 6-month optional pricing IAW FAR 52.217-8. This will be determined at the individual Task Order level and specific instructions will be provided within the Task Order Solicitations.

N None

24 "Should the Government make use of FAR 52.217-8, it would have the abillty to extend the contract ordering period or any TO POPs for up to six additional months." This statement has potential to contradict the information contained within 52.216-22(d). If you include the -8 within a TO, placed in the last year of the ordering period and include 5 (1) year options, the life of the contract would be 10 years and 6 months.

M.1.3 FAR 52.216-22(d) is not inclusive of the six-month extension. The six-month extension is exercised in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 and the Contracting Officer may exercise the six-month extension by written notice to the Contractor any time before the contract expires.

N None

25 Part B (Clin 9999 Surge) states "Offerors are instructed to propose this EXACT percentage (35%) for Surge CLIN 9999. Is this percentage applicable to travel and ODCs cost? Or 35% of Labor only?

Is this percentage applicable to pricing in accordandce with 52.217-8?

L.6.2.2 The Surge percentage is inclusive of Labor, Travel and ODC cost.

This percentage is not applicable to pricing in accordance with FAR 52.217-8.

N None

26 Solicitation states "The subfactors will not be rolled up to one overall rating."

Please explain how subfactors will be rated, as there are multiple subtask within the subfactors. Will each subtask be scored, then rolled into one (1) overall score for each subfactor?

M.2.1.2 The three Subfactors in Factor 1 : "Technical/Management Approach" will not be rolled up to one overall rating . Among the three Subfactors, Subfactor 1 is the most important, followed by Subfactor 2 and then Subfactor 3. The Subfactors will be evaluated in accordance with Table 1 color scheme for the combined technical/management and risk ratings. Each Subfactor will have one rating.

N None

27 How does the government intend on realigning pricing under Surge (Cost Clin) to a separate Labor Clin (FFP)?

Item No. 9999 The Government may require surge support during the ordering period or any option period and surge modifications must be in-scope to provide increased support for the defined task areas of the PWS.

In the event the Government does elect to exercise the Surge Option, surge support will be realigned under new or existing CLINs for the relevant task areas identified in the PWS, and an equal amount will be deducted from the Surge CLIN not-to-exceed amount.

N None

28 Section B states "Contract Ceiling value of all Task Orders in this single award procurment is established at $385,000,000. Does this figure include the cost associate with Surge Clin 9999?

Section B Yes N None

29 Given the lengthy L.4.2.2.3 section L requirements, will the Govt consider increasing the page count to 30 pages in order to allow industry ample space to throughly repspond to the requirements.

L.4.2.2.3 No. N None

30 Given the significant OCONUS requirements associated with DISA's MPE mission, it’s in the best interst of the Govt to award to a small business with current or recent OCONUS performance/experience. Will the Govt consider evaluating more foavorably prime offeror past performance references with OCONUS place of performance.

L.5.4.2 OCONUS Experience would be related to Relevance aspect of the Past Performance Factor. Refer to Section M for Evaluation Factors.

N None

31 The statement, "The Offeror's proposal must include a signed copy of the solicitation (to include all subsequent amendments) and completion of Sections A through K" contradicts the more precise statements that follow.

Will the Government please remove that statement?

L.3.5.1 Representations and Certifications

No contradiction exists. Completion and submission were not written synonymously.

N None

32 Will the Government please remove the sentence, "Offerors shall provide a copy of their Online Representations and Certifications (ORCA) filings"?

L.3.5.8 Section K - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors

No. Offerors are responsible for providing a copy of their ORCA filings. N None

33 Will the Government please remove the sentence, "Offerors are also required to complete additional representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements reflected in Section K of this solicitation" and rely on the prior incorporation of 52.204-7, which provides a system for addressing all these solicitation provisions? I'm not clear on what's "additional."

L.3.5.8 Section K - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors

No. Additional refers to the representations, certifications, acknowledgements an statements reflected specifically in Section K of this solicitation.

N None

34 Please clarify that no response is required addressing section H except for the fill-in for 52.237-9000 KEY PERSONNEL (AUG 2011)? Alternatively, Is it the govt's intent to obtain the statement or plan at 52.209-9000

ORGANIZATIONAL AND CONSULTANT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

(which calls for such a statement in each "proposal, quote, bid or any resulting contract") and, if so, how will responses be evaluated and are there any known limits on future contracting?

L.3.5.6 Section H - Special Contract Requirements

DARS 52.237-9000 requires fill-in text for "Key Personnel".

Reference to Section H.2 "Organizational And Consultant Conflicts of Interest (OCCI) has been removed. Please refer to DARS clause 52.209-9000.

Y RFP Section H.2

35 Section L.3.5.7 indicates "See RFP. The Offeror shall comply with the clauses provided in Section I." Can this please be changed to "No submission required"?

L.3.5.7 Section I - Contract Clauses

No. N None

36 Please verify that the past performance template to be used is Attachment 3, not Attachment 5 as listed in L.5.1.2, "In accordance with the page limitations set forth in Table 1.1, Offerors shall provide information requested in the Past Performance Information Template, Attachment 5, for each reference."

L.5.1.2 The Government has revised RFP Section L.5.1.2 to indicate that "Offerors shall provide information requested in the Past Performance Information Template, Attachment 3, for each reference.

Y RFP Section L.5.1.2

37 In L.2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits and L.24, it is stated that the pricing spreadsheet will be "Part C". However, L.6.2.2 lists the Price Summary Spreadsheet as "Part B." Please verify the correct placement of the pricing spreadsheet in the proposal.

L.2.2, L.2.4, L.6.2.2 The Government has revised RFP Section L.2.2 and L.2.4 to reflect that Part A is the Price Narrative and Part B is the Price Summary Spreadsheet in order to be consistent with L.6.2.2.

Y RFP Sections L.2.2 and L.2.4

38 In L.2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits, it is stated that an Introduction will be "Part A." However, L.6.2 Volume Organization, no mention is made of an Introduction. Please verify if an introductory section is required and the correct organization of pricing volume.

L.2.2, L.6.2 The Government has revised RFP Section L.2.2 and L.2.4 to reflect that Part A is the Price Narrative and Part B is the Price Summary Spreadsheet in order to be consistent with L.6.2.2.

Y RFP Sections L.2.2 and L.2.4

39 Will the government extend the due date to 2 weeks after receipt of answers to questions in order to allow industry ample time to respond to the requirements?

General The Government will extend the proposal deadline in block 9 to April 5, 2018 at 4:00PM EST. Refer to block 9 of the solicitation.

Y RFP Block 9

40 How are the overseas add-on's handled, such as COLA as that varies depending on the location of the position?

Volume IV- Factor 3, Price

Each vendor is responsible for determing how they will handle overseas add-ons.

N None

41 Will the Government cover relocation costs for OCONUS personnel? Volume IV- Factor 3, Price

Refer to PWS Section 9. N None

42 The pricing spreadsheet does not appear to provide specific OCONUS locations that are cited in the RFP, for the OCOUNUS Tab Labor Build Up.

How are the labor rates to be distinquished between one OCONUS location to another without providing that granularity of detail?

Volume IV- Factor 3, Price

Offerors shall propose ceiling rates for each labor category in the pricing spreadsheet. Offerors may propose labor rates lower than its ceiling rates for Task Orders.

N None

43 Is a DoD-approved purchasing system required by the prime to bid this opportunity?

Section B No. N None

44 We respectfully request that the SCRM plan be included as an appendix or attachment to Volume II, rather than inline in the main Technical Narrative.

This will help facilitiate overall packaging/presentation of Volume II.

Volume II - Technical/Management Approach

No revision. N None

45 We respectuflly request a minimum of a one-week extension for the Proposal due date in order to have sufficient time to review and consider the government responses to questions.

SF 33, Block 9 The Government will extend the proposal deadline in block 9 to April 5, 2018 at 4:00PM EST. Refer to block 9 of the solicitation.

Y RFP Block 9

46 Do the representations and certifications in L.3.5.1 need to be completed if offerors are registered in SAM?

L.3.5.1 Yes. N None

47 What kind of testing specifically is in PWS 6.4.2? Please provide the details on the types of scenarios.

PWS 6.4.2 This testing validates the MPE enterprise services described in section 6.4.1 Subtask 2 - Operations. These tests determine the degree to which enterprise services meet the customers needs -- that is, Are they the right services? The scenarios and specific test will be determined at the task order level.

N None

48 Are call out boxes allowed to be a smaller than size 11 font limit (i.e., 10 point)?

L 2.2.2.2 The Government has revised RFP Section L.2.2.2.2 to state that legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. For tables, charts, graphs, figures, headers and footers, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point Arial or Times New Roman font for all text included in a table. It is Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the information is readable.

Y RFP Section L.2.2.2.2

49 Discrepency between volume organization instructions Table 1.1 and L 6.2.1.

Table 1.1 states Part A is introduction, L 6.2.1 states Part A is price narrative.

Can the government provide clarification on this.

Table 1.1, L 6.2.1 The Government has revised RFP Section L.2.2 and L.2.4 to reflect that Part A is the Price Narrative and Part B is the Price Summary Spreadsheet in order to be consistent with L.6.2.2.

Y RFP Sections L.2.2 and L.2.4

50 Will the Government please provide detailed information reagarding the current volume of incoming tickets daily/weekly/monthly?

N/A The current contract is requirements based and Service Representatives provide support based on established requirements in the Task Order and not on a problem/service ticket based system.

N None

51 Does the Government plan to or will the Government consider authorizing purchase through GSA Schedules (FAR Par 51) for the DISA MNIS opportunity?

N/A This will be identified at the Task Order level and would only occur if available and only when the KO issues an authorization to a Contractor to use Government supply sources.

N None

52 The Contractor shall liaise with the customer on the C&As of their environment supporting electronic MPE information-sharing capability, their interfaces to each other, and their interfaces to U.S. networks, in accordance with published guidance.

Who is the desginated Approving Official (AO) for MPE - Informaiton Systems accreditation?

6.4.4 Subtask 4 - C&A, pg 13

This varies by DoD customer. The Approving Official (AO) for MPE - Information Systems accreditation will be provided by individual Task Order.

N None

53 What will be the awarded value of the IDIQ? None The ceiling is $385,000,000. There is no awarded value at the IDIQ Contract level.

N None

54 Will OCONUS specific labor burdens be handled via ODC (e.g., hazardous duty pay) as is normally done on the DISA contracts?

Page 81 of 94, Section L.6.0 Volume IV - FACTOR 3: Price

No. OCONUS specific labor burdens should include additional adjustments. N None

55 L.4.2.2.3 Part C –Technical / Management Approach states that “The Offeror’s Technical / Management approach should affirm the capabilities to execute all tasks specified in Section 6 of the attached Performance Work Statement (PWS)” and “The Offerors will be evaluated on their responses to the below PWS Tasks”. The tasks listed in L.4.2.2.3 only include 4 of the 6 mentioned in Section 6 of PWS: Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Enterprise Management Services (Task 4, PWS 6.4), Subfactor 2: Contract Management and Task Order Management (Task Area 1, PWS 6.1), Subfactor 3: Systems Administration (Task Area 2, PWS 6.2) and Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan (task area 5). In addition, L.4.1 indicates “Your responses will be evaluated against the technical/management criteria defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award” which also include the 4 previously mentioned tasks. Please clarify if the offeror addresses Task Area 3: Security Services and Task Area 6:

Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation (RDT&E) that they will be outside of the 20-page limit.

L.4.2.2.3 Part C –Technical / Management Approach,

p. 77

The Offeror is to affirm their ability to meet all of the requirements of the entire PWS. The Offeror need only specifically address the individual PWS sections that are part of the evaluation factors.

N None

56 Table 1.1 - Proposal Organization refers to Part A (L.6.2.1) as the Introduction, Part B (L.6.2.2) as the Price Narrative and Part C (L.6.2.3) as Government Provided Excel Workbook. However, RFP Section L.6.2.1 indicates that Part A is the Price Narrative, L.6.2.2 indicates that Part B is the Price Summary Spreadsheet but makes no mention of an Introduction.

Please clarify the correct headings and RFP references.

L.2.2 - Table 1.1 - Proposal Organization

(p. 71) & L.6.2.1 (p. 83)

The Government has revised RFP Section L.2.2 and L.2.4 to reflect that Part A is the Price Narrative and Part B is the Price Summary Spreadsheet in order to be consistent with L.6.2.2.

Y RFP Sections L.2.2 and L.2.4

57 Ref L.2.2.2.2, are headers and footers restricted to the 10 point Arial or Times New Roman font?

L.2.2.2.2 (p. 73) The Government has revised RFP Section L.2.2.2.2 to state that legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. For tables, charts, graphs, figures and headers and footers, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point Arial or Times New Roman font for all text included in a table. It is Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the information is readable.

Y RFP Section L.2.2.2.2

58 Table 1.1 - Proposal Organization refers to the volume sections as “Parts”.

RFP page 74 indicates that the files should be labeled using “Tabs”. Are Tabs and Parts the same?

L.2.2 - Table 1.1 - Proposal Organization

The Government has replaced "Tab" with "Part" for consistency. Y RFP Section L.2.4

59 Can the government confirm if Visa and Passport expenses will be Cost Reimbursable ODCs?

RFP Page 2, Section B.4

Visa and Passport expenses should be part of reloaction expenses. N None

60 Can the government confirm that OCONUS ODC plugs include all allowances OCONUS costs, including Cost of Living Allowance, per-diem, differentials, uplift, and dependent Department of Defense education K-12.

RFP Page 3, Section B.6.3

OCONUS ODC plugs include all allowances OCONUS costs, including Cost of Living Allowance, per-diem, differentials, and uplift with the exception of dependent Department of Defense education K-12.

N None

61 Do the OCONUS allowances on this contract include all rates published by the Department of State, including dependent K-12 education?

RFP Page 3, Section B.6.3

OCONUS ODC plugs include all allowances OCONUS costs, including Cost of Living Allowance, per-diem, differentials, and uplift with the exception of dependent Department of Defense education K-12.

N None

62 Can the government provide additional fidelity regarding approved body armor specifications?

RFP Page 20/94 On-site Support Afghanistan, 2nd paragraph and RFP

No. N None

63 Can the government confirm the contractor is responsible for providing their own body armor at no cost to the government?

RFP Page 20/94 On-site Support Afghanistan, 2nd paragraph and RFP

Yes N None

64 Would the government consider approving a streamlined contractor deployment readiness process rather than requiring travel to existing CRC/IDS sites, so long as the contractor's process/program includes all of the same training and medical/dental requirements that the CRC/IDS sites contain?

RFP Page 20/94 On-site Support Afghanistan, 4th paragraph

Yes, as long as the streamlined process meets alll of the DoD requirments for OCONUS deployment.

N None

65 Given the unique requirement for CRC training, will the government reconsider making this cost reimbursable as an ODC?

RFP Page 20/94 On-site Support Afghanistan, 4th paragraph

No N None

66 Is travel CLIN to the AOR inclusive of CRC TDY-enroute (time and travel costs)?

RFP Page 20/94 On-site Support Afghanistan, 4th paragraph

No, CRC is at no cost to the Government. N None

67 Can the government confirm the cost for leased vehicles is included in the ODC plug number?

RFP Pages 20, 21, and

The cost for leased vehicles is not included in the ODC plug number. N None

68 Will the government provide a breakdown for the FTEs included in the table at page 21, with the locaions indicated in pages 16, 22, and 23?

RFP Pages 16, 20, 54, and 68 of 95

As specific FTE counts can be considered proprietary information, an FTE count will not be furnished. Instead, the Government has provided a list of the Labor Categories that are incorporated into the IDIQ Contract and were written to encompass the broad scope of information technology requirements for the Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Network Engineering Services for the Combatant Commands (CCMDs) Contract. Under performance-based contracting, it is the responsibility of the contractor to propose based upon the Offeror’s specific technical approach.

Additionally, the Government has provided a table for "Notational CCMD FTE Support" in Section 9 of the PWS, on Page 20 of the RFP.

N None

69 In L.2.2 (Page 72), the RFP states, "For each reference, the Offeror may submit one (1) Past Performance Description which is Attachment 3 (page limit = 1). However, in L.5.1.2 (Page 79) Offerors shall provide information requested in the Past Performance Information Template, Attachment 5, for each reference. We request that the government please clarify the Attachment references in the soliciation?

RFP Pages, 72 and 79 The Government has revised RFP Section L.5.1.2 to indicate that "Offerors shall provide information requested in the Past Performance Information Template, Attachment 3, for each reference.

Y RFP Section L.5.1.2

70 In L.5.0 (Page 79 - 81), the RFP list the main sections of Volume III: PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME as:

• Summary

• Past Performance Information for Recent and Relevant Contracts

• Part C – Consent Letters

• Part D – Organizational Structure Change History Would the the government please clarify that the first two items listed above should be listed as Part A and Part B?

RFP Pages, 79 and 81 The Government has revised RFP Section L.5.1.1 and L.5.1.2 to indicate "Part A- Summary" and "Part B " Past Performance Information for Recent and Relevant Contracts" respectively.

Y RFP Section L.5.1.1 and L.5.1.2

71 Given the size/value of the task order and its global scope and complexities, would the government consider expanding the Past Performances from three

(3) to four (4) and allowing a total of two (2) Past Performances from major subcontractors?

RFP Pages, 79 and 80, Section L.5.1.2

No revisions. N None

72 Section 6.1.1 states that A draft CMP shall be submitted with the Contractor’s proposal and a final version 30 calendar days after contract award. Section 11 states that the draft is due with technical proposal with the final due 60 calendar days after award Please confirm that the final version of the Contract Management Plan (CMP) is due within 30 calendar days after contract award.

Section 6.1.1; Section

The Government has revised the PWS to reflect 30 calendar days after award. Y RFP Section B "Performance Work Statement" Section 11 "Delivery Schedule"

73 Section 11. Delivery Schedule lists a portal as a method of CDRL distribution.

Please provide additonal information on the portal.

Section 11. PWS Section 11 does not mention CDRLs. This acquisition is based on Deliverables identified in PWS Section 11 Nevertheless, a portal maybe one method of distributing Government required deliverables. The portal (e.g.

SharePoint) may vary by Command and will be identified as necessary in individual Task Orders.

N None

74 There is a requirement for offerors to submit a draft Contract Management Plan (CMP) along with the proposal, with a final CMP due post-award. Does the government intend to consider the offeror’s technical volume response to PWS 6.1 – Contract and Task Order Management as fulfillment of the requirement for a draft CMP, or should the draft CMP be submitted separately like the government has directed for the SCRM plan?

PWS 6.1.1 p. 8 : “A draft CMP shall be submitted with the Contractor’s proposal and a final version 30 calendar days after contract award.”

The draft CMP shall be submitted separately (PWS 6.1.1) and will be considered as the basis for a final CMP as prescribed in the PWS (30 days after contract award).

N None

75 Will the government consider the offeror’s response to PWS 6.2 – Systems Administration fulfillment of the requirement for a System Administration Plan or should this plan be submitted separately like the SCRM plan?

PWS L.4.2.2.3.3 p.78 :

“The Offeror shall submit a System Administration plan that demonstrates the Offeror’s approach and understanding of the requirements for systems hardware and software engineering, requirements analysis, site evaluations, configuration management, test and evaluation, operations and maintenance and technical services at facilities in the Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside CONUS (OCONUS) locations (PWS Task Area 6.2).”

The Government has revised the language in L.4.2.2.3.3 to replace "plan" with "methodology" in order to clarify that a seperate "System Adminstration Plan" document is not required.

Y L.4.2.2.3.3

76 Will the government consider changing the minimum font size to 8pt for graphics and tables?

PWS L.2.2.2.2 Page Size and Format. p.73

The Government has revised RFP Section L.2.2.2.2 to state that legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. For tables, charts, graphs, figures and headers and footers, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point Arial or Times New Roman font for all text included in a table. It is Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the information is readable.

Y RFP Section L.2.2.2.2

77 Will the government please specify what they would like regarding "tab indexing?" Would it be a consideration to include "thumb indexing?"

PWS L.2.2.5 Indexing.

p.73

The Government has revised the language in RFP Section L.2.2.5 to remove reference to tab indexing. No thumb indexing.

Y RFP Section L.2.2.5

78 L.4.2.2.3 contains overall instructions and requirements that are separate from the instructions for each subfactor. Because there are only three technical subfactors that the Government is evaluating, it is unclear how the Government will be evaluating the requirements in L.4.2.2.3. Please confirm that the Government will be evaluating the requirements in L.4.2.2.3 (e.g., capabilities to execute all tasks, approach to fully meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS) in the context of each evaluated subfactor and that offerors should not allocate separate pages in their technical volume to address L.4.2.2.3, which has no evaluation criteria attached to it.

PWS L.4.2.2.3 Part C.

Technical/Management Approach

The Offeror is to affirm their ability to meet all of the requirements of the entire PWS. The Offeror need only specifically address the individual PWS sections that are part of the evaluation factors.

N None

79 The first paragraph under L.4.2.2.3 states that technical/management approaches should affirm the capabilities to execute all tasks.