MPE-S_RFP_Responses_to_Questions_for_Clarification_Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 47 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Mission Partner Environment Services (MPE-S)
- Solicitation number
- HC1047-18-R-4012
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
This is a presolicitation notice for the Mission Partner Environment Services (MPE-S) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) intends to issue a solicitation for worldwide MPE-S to provide full life cycle services and associated equipment to design, implement and operate the MPE enterprise. Services will include capabilities analysis, engineering, software development, program management, logistics, testing and evaluation. The period of performance is a five-year ordering period. The contract type will include firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and cost reimbursable CLINs. The estimated value is $998 million. Questions regarding the presolicitation notice are due by June 27, 2018. DISA anticipates releasing the request for proposal in July 2018 with award by the fourth quarter of 2018.
Government Responses to Questions for Clarification
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q & A
| MPE-S HC1047-18-R-4012 | |
| ATTACHMENT 7 - QUESTION TEMPLATE | |
| Company Name: |
| Question # | Questions / Comments | RFP Reference | Government Response | RFP Change Required (Y/N) | Location of Change | |
| 1 | Given DODI 8530.01 designates DOD Components as CSSP certified entities, a commercial company does not have the flexibility to receive the certification in accordance with DODI 8530.01. Will the government please clarify the requirement? Maintaining this language would severely limit the competitive pool given virtually no commercial providers are given this designation. Recommend the RFP be revised to request the contractor demonstrate their demonstrated ability to support a certified CSSP. | RFP Section C.15, L.1.1.3, and L3.5.11 specify that the contractor must be a certified Tier 3 CyberSecurity Service | ||||
| Provider (CSSP). | In PWS section 15, "Other Pertinent Information or Special Considerations," the second sentence is changed to read: "The requirements of DoD Instruction (DoDI) 8530.01, "SUBJECT: Cybersecurity Activities Support to DoD Information Network Operations," apply to this contract, per paragraph 2.e of the DoDI (Ref: DoDI 8530.01 version of March 7, 2016, incorporating Change 1, July 25, 2017). Therefore, the Contractor shall self-certify it possesses the organizational, process and technical capabilities of a DoD Cybersecurity Service Provider (CSSP). Concomitant changes in RFP: PWS Task 6.3.1 Subtask 1 – Tier 2 and Tier 3 Service Desks, and Knowledge Management – The second sentence is changed to read: "The Contractor shall be a self-certified Cybersecurity Service Provider (CSSP)." Section L.1.1.3. - The second sentence is changed to read: The Contractor shall be a self-certified Cybersecurity Service Provider (CSSP). | Y | RFP Section C.15, PWS Task 6.3.1, L.1.1.3, and L3.5.11 | |||
| 2 | Regarding the requirement to prepare an IMS, will the Government please clarify if the requirement as part of Subfactor 3 is to provide our approach to developing an IMS for each TO, or do you want an IMS for the notional TO? If the Government requests an IMS for the notional task order, will the government please accept as a separate attachment (in MS Project) excluded from page count? | PWS 6.1 Subfactor 3: Contract Management and TO Management | For Subfactor 3, an IMS is not required for the Notional Task Order. IMS capability shall be addressed in response to the IDIQ PWS requirements. Please refer to Section L of the RFP and the PWS 6.1, Task Area 1. | N | ||
| 3 | Will the Government please confirm the SMP should be developed in MS Word format? | PWS 6.1.1 Service Management Plan (SMP); PWS 11. | Please review the formatting requirements in Section L. There are no SMP specific formatting requirements. | N | ||
| 4 | The delivery schedule for the Notional Task Order requests the SMP 45 days after award. Will the Government please clarify whether submission of the SMP is a requirement with IDIQ submission or a deliverable required after award? | PWS 6.1.1 Service Management Plan (SMP) | The Notional Task Order is a sample document and does not represent the Government's actual requirements. The delivery timeframes included therein are an example of what may be included in a Task Order under the IDIQ and do not change the Section L or Section M requirements. | N | ||
| 5 | If the SMP is not synonomous with Contract Management Plan (CMP) and is a requirement with IDIQ proposal submission, will the Government please confirm submission of the SMP should be done as a separate attachment excluded from page count? A basic SMP, without tailoring to specific requirements, is well beyond the current 8-page allotment for the CMP. | PWS 6.1.1 Service Management Plan (SMP) | The Contract Management Plan (CMP) required in Section L.2.2 is removed and replaced by the Service Management Plan (SMP). This acquisition uses a commercial, international standard SMP instead of a CMP. In Section L.2.2, Table 1.1, Volume II, Part C, RFP Paragraph Reference L.4.2.2.3 -- The text in the "Volume Title" column is changed to read (changes in red font): "Technical / Management Approach, Service Management Plan (SMP), and Resume of Key Personnel - Contract Program Manager." The text in the "Page Limit" column is changed to read: "Technical / Management Approach shall not exceed 40 pages, inclusive of the SMP. The SMP shall not exceed 25 pages. The resumes shall not exceed 3 pages and are not included towards the 15 page count for the Technical / Management Approach page limitations." | Y | Section L.2.2, Table 1.1 | |
| 6 | Will the Government please clarify the extent to which the SMP will be incorporated into the evaluation of proposals, if required with proposal submission? For example, will it be incorporated into the overall rating for subfactor 3 specifically (contributing to a "outstanding" or "good" rating for that subfactor), or will it be evaluated to determine compliance with the RFP requirements? | 6.1.1 Service Management Plan (SMP); M.2.2.3 | The SMP will be evaluated as part of Subfactor 3 as detailed in Section M. | N | ||
| 7 | Is the contractor required to identify, procure, and install the Requirements Traceability Tool to be used for satisfying 6.2.1 Subtask 1 - Systems Engineering and Development? | 6.2.1 | Yes | N | ||
| 8 | Is there an existing Dev/Sec/Ops management application tool in place that is expected to be used to support the Software Development and the Development/Security/Operations (Dev/Sec/Ops) Model? | 6.2.3 | No | N | ||
| 9 | The RFP states 'the Contractor shall be a certified Tier 3 Cybersecurity Service Provider (CSSP)'. To our knowledge there is no certification for the Tier 3 CSSP Provider. Would the Government please clarify what evidence is required, and what consitutes evidence of a provider Tier 3 CSSP Certification? | 6.3 Task 3, Section 15, L.1.1.3. | Please see the response to Question #1. | Y | RFP Section C.15, PWS Task 6.3.1, L.1.1.3, and L3.5.11 | |
| 10 | L.4.2.2.3 states the offeror shall affirm the capabilities to execute all tasks specified in Section 6 of the attached PWS. M.2.1.1 Factor 1 includes PWS 6.2, 6.3, and 6.1 but appears to omit PWS 6.4 SCRM. The Notional/Sample Task (Attach 9) also appears to omit SCRM. |
Q1) Would the Government please confirm that PWS 6.4 SCRM is not evaluated, and as such, the SCRM is excluded from the 25 page limit of Volume II?
| Q2) If the Government requires the offeror to address the SCRM as part of the offerors response, would the Government please increase the page limit to at least 35 pages to allow the contractor to provide a compliant response that would include an SCRM? | PWS 6.4 Task 4 SCRM RFP page 15; L.4.2.2.3 Part C Technical/Management Approach; M. 2.1.1 Evaluation factors; Attachment 9 Sample Task Order | The SCRM plan will be evaluated as part of the first Task Order. | N | ||
| 11 | The Delivery Schedule notes that SCRM requirements will be determined at the TO level. The solicitation requests an initial SCRM with Task Order 0001, but the included notional task order makes no requests for a SCRM plan. Will the Government please confirm submission of the SCRM Plan is to be done at the task order level upon award, and not with initial proposal submission at the IDIQ level? | PWS 6.4 Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan | Please see the response to Question #10. | N | |
| 12 | If the Government requests an initial SCRM Plan with Offerors' proposals at the IDIQ level, will the Government please confirm this should be submitted as a separate attachment excluded from page count? | PWS 6.4 Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan | Please see the response to Question #10. | N | |
| 13 | Will the Government please clarify that the notional task order will not be awarded as TO 0001? | PWS 6.4; Notional Task Order | Confirmed. | N | |
| 14 | 12.2.1 states "SCI processing for SCI eligibilty shall be coordinated with supporting Government Security Manager and shall begin immediately upon start of duty performance under this contract." Section L.1.1.2 states "....Personnel requiring TS/SCI clearance must possess a current INTERIM or FINAL TS/SCI security clearance". Will persons in positions requiring SCI access be able to begin on contract with only TS eligibility and be sponsored for an SCI Nomination to receive their SCI eligibilty or do they have to have SCI or interim SCI eligibility before starting on contract? | PWS Section 12.2.1 (page 22); L.1.1.2 (page 66) | Yes, individuals in positions requiring SCI access may begin with TS eligibility. | N | |
| 15 | 12.3 states "The Tier 5 shall be maintained current within 5-years ….". Section 12.4 has similar language concerning 5 years vs. 6 years. The current reinvestigation timeframe is 6 years from the anniversay date of the previous T5. Are they sticking with the current 6-year guidance, or still requiring a PR at the 5-year mark? | PWS Section 12.3 & section 12.4 (page 22) | The requirements in the PWS remain unchanged. | N | |
| 16 | "12.7.6 Contractor personnel will generate or handle documents that contain For Official Use Only information at the Government facility. The Contractor shall have access to generate and handle classified material only at the location(s) listed in the place of performance section of this document" - Would the Government please confirm that contractor personnel are required to work at both Government location and offsite while handling FOUO material? | PWS Section 12.7.6 | FOUO material must be handled at Government facilities, at the locations listed in the place of performance section. | N | |
| 17 | We understand each volume shall include a more detailed Table of Contents IAW L.2.2.5. However, the Table of Contents requirement and Part X identifier for a Table of Contents appears to be missing for Volume III Past Performance in L.2.2 Table 1.1; and is also missing from L.5. |
Should a Table of Contents be included in Vol III Past Performance, and if so, would the Government clarify if this Table of Contents is to be entitled “Part A Table of Contents”, and the remaining subsequent Sections should be renamed as “Part B Summary”, “Part C Past Performance Information for Recent and Relevant Contracts”, “Part D Consent Letters” and “Part E Organizational Structure History”, as it appears L.2.2.5 conflicts with L.2.2 Table 1.1 and L.5 specific to Volume III Past Performance?
Would the Government please clarify if Volume III requires a TOC for each submitted part?
| If only one TOC is required for the entire volume III, would the Government please clarify which file(s) the TOC is to be submitted with? | L.2.2 Table 1.1; L.2.2.5: L.5 | As stated in Section L.2.2.5, each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents (TOC) to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. The Volume III parts should correspond to the table in Section L.2.2. There are no requirements for the title of the Volume III TOC. Aside from the Section L requirements, the organization of the volume is at the Offeror's discretion. | N | ||
| 18 | Will the Government please confirm that offerors are permitted to use tables for the majority of their Volume III - Part A,C,D file? | L.2.2.2 | All formatting requirements are detailed in Section L. Upon meeting these requirements, Offerors should utilize their business judgment to determine how best to organize and format their proposals. | N | |
| 19 | Each volume of the proposal is required to have a cover sheet. There are three files for the past performance volume according to L.2.4. |
Will the Government please confirm that only one (1) cover sheet is needed for Vol III, and if so, will the Government please clarify which of the three files the cover sheet is to be submitted with (i.e. Company Name Volume III - Part A,C,D; Company Name - Volume III - Part B - Reference 1; or Company Name - Volume III - Part B - Reference 2)?
| L.2.2.6; L.2.4 | One cover page should be included in Past Performance Volume. Aside from the Section L requirements, the organization of the volume is at the Offeror's discretion. | N | ||
| 20 | Will the Government please clarify that the "1 PP Description" required in the Proposal Organization table is the same information requested with Part B - PP Information Template, Attachment 3? | L.2.2 Table 1.1 Volume III: Past Performance Volume; Attachment 3 PP Information Template | The Past Performance Description refers to Attachment 3. | N |
| 21 | L.2.2 Table 1.1 Vol III Part B states for each reference there shall be 1 PP Description, 1 CPARS, 1 PPQ. L.5.1.2 states that if a CPARS is available, a PP Description and PPQ are not required. |
| Q) Would the Government please confirm that the offeror is to submit a PP description and PPQ ONLY if a CPARS is not available per L.5.1.2? | L.2.2 Table 1.1 Vol III Part B; L.5.1.2 | As stated in Section L.5.1.2, if a CPARS is included, a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is not required. As stated in Section L.5.1.2, Offerors shall provide information requested in the Past Performance Information Template, Attachment 3, for each reference. | N | ||
| 22 | L.2.2 Table 1.1 Vol III Part B states for each reference there shall be 1 PP Description, 1 CPARS, 1 PPQ. L.5.1.2 requests three (3) CPARS if available. | ||||
| Q) Would the Government please confirm that the offeror is to submit one (1) CPARS per Past Performance reference, as it appears L.5.1.2 to be in error? | L.2.2 Table 1.1 Vol III Part B; L.5.1.2 | As stated in Section L.5.1.2, the Offeror shall provide three formal performance evaluations if available. Table 1.1 included in Section L.2.2 summarizes the minimum requirements. | N | ||
| 23 | SF-33 block 9 states sealed offers in original and 1 copies for furnishing supplies of services in the schedule will be received in Item 8…block 8 states see Item 7, Item 7 provides DISA. L.2.4 Electronic Submission of Offer states 'In order to respond to this solicitation, electronic proposals are to be submitted in lieu of paper copies.' | ||||
| Q) Would the Government please confirm one (1) electronic submission via email is required per L.2.4, as original and one copy requirement in Section A SF-33 appears to be in conflict? | L.2.4; A SF-33 Block 9 | Adhere to the requirements in Section L.2.4 and the submission deadline in Block 9. The referenced language in SF33 Block 9 regarding sealed offers cannot be altered. | N | ||
| 24 | Will the Government accept submission of word doc files in .pdf format (though created in MS Word) to ensure the preservation of formatting? For example, this would include the SMP and the technical/management volume. | Word Doc Submission Files (L.2.4) | Yes, the Government will accept the format(s) detailed in Section L.2.4. | N | |
| 25 | L.3.5.6 states 'Please note Section H.15.Key Personnel requires Offerors to fill-in the name of the proposed Contract Program Manager.' L.4.2.2.3.3 states 'The Offeror shall provide a generic resume for the Contract Program Manager, in lieu of a specific individual’s resume.' Q) Would the Government please confirm the offeror is to provide a specific individual's resume as the Contract Program Manager and must be named IAW L.3.5.6? | L.3.5.6; H.15: L.4.2.2.3.3 | The Offeror shall provide generic resumes and in Section H.15. fill in the name of the proposed Contract Program Manager. The requirement for an individual's name in Section H.15 is for contract administration purposes and will not be evaluated in the source selection. | N | |
| 26 | Within the instructions for the technical/management volume, the RFP states, "The Offeror’s proposal shall describe how the Offeror intends to meet or exceed the requirements detailed in the Notional Task Order (Attachment 9, Notional Task Order). The Offeror shall include an estimate of the personnel hours, by labor category and level, required for each task and subtask included in the Notional Task Order." |
| These instructions make it unclear the extent to which the Notional Task Order should be addressed in Offers' tecnical/management volumes. As written it appears that Subfactors 1 and 2 should be in direct response to all IDIQ PWS 6.1 tasks and subtasks. It appears that in response to Subfactor 3, Offerors should include the hours and labor mix required to accomplish the Notional Task Oder. Will the Government please clarify if this understanding is correct? | L.4.2.2.3. - Technical Instructions | The Notional Task Order is a sample document that is representative of specific requirements that full under the overarching IDIQ requirements and therefore the IDIQ PWS and Notional Task Order PWS are not mutually exclusive requirements. Both the IDIQ PWS and the Notional Task Order PWS requirements should be addressed in the Offeror's Technical/Management Approach. | N |
| 27 | Will the Government please clarify the requirement that, "The Offeror’s proposal shall describe how the Offeror intends to meet or exceed the requirements detailed in the Notional Task Order (Attachment 9, Notional Task Order)?" |
| Do Offerors' responses detailing an estimate of the personnel hours, by labor category and level, required for each task and subtask within Subfactor 3 capture the extent of this requirement? Meaning, Offerors are not required to include a narrative response directly in response to all Notional Task Order tasks and subtasks within Subfactors 1 and 2. | L.4.2.2.3. - Technical Instructions | The IDIQ PWS represent overarching requirements that are not conducive to an accurate estimate of the requisite hours, labor categories and levels. Therefore, the hours, labor categories and levels required are limited to the Notional PWS requirements. All narrative should take into account both the IDIQ PWS and the Notional PWS requirements. | N | |||
| 28 | There appear to be several discrepancies between the PWS and Sample Task Order (STO) at the following sections: PWS/STO 6.2.2 Subtask 2; PWS/STO 6.2.3 Subtask 3; PWS/STO 6.2.4 Subtask 4; PWS/STO 6.2.5 Subtask 5; PWS/STO 6.3.1 Subtask 1; PWS/STO Subtask 6.3.2 Subtask 2. per FAR 15.001, "“Proposal modification” is a change made to a proposal before the solicitation closing date and time, or made in response to an amendment, or made to correct a mistake at any time before award. "Q1) If the offeror is required to address both the PWS factors and associated PWS subtasks as well as the STO factors and associated STO subtasks in the offerors Technical/Management Volume, would the government please increase the page count from 25 to at least 35 pages to allow the offeror to provide a thorough and/or exceptional approach to these factors and subtasks per M.2.2? | L.4.2.2.3; L.4.2.2.3.1, L.4.2.2.3.2, L.4.2.2.3.3; Attachment 9 Sample Task Order; M.2.2; M.2.2.1; M.2.2.2; M.2.2.3 | Please see the revised page limitations detailed in the response to Question #5. | Y | Section L.2.2, Table 1.1 | |
| 29 | The solicitation states, "The Offeror’s proposal shall include an appropriate mix of labor categories, labor skill mix and the number of labor hours to meet the requirements of the PWS." Will the Government please confirm that the PWS in reference here is the notional task order PWS? | L.4.2.2.3.3 - Subfactor 3 | Confirmed. The solicitation has been amended to clarify that the PWS referenced is the Notional Task Order PWS. | Y | L.4.2.2.3.3, M.2.2.3 | |
| 30 | The Government states that goals proposed are at the discretion of the Offeror, and that the participation plan will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Will the Government please advise on whether there are minimum small business participation goals offerors must propose to be evaluated as "acceptable?" | L.4.2.2.4 - SB Participation Plan | There are not minimum small business participation goals Offerors must propose. The RFQ has been revised to clarify that zero percent goals require additional supporting documentation. | Y | L.4.2.2.4, M.2.4 | |
| 31 | This section instructs Offerors who are submitting Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) to complete "all sections" of the PPQ prior to sending it to the assessing official. Though the following sentence forbids Offerors from completing "any other section" of the PPQ, an Offeror that completes "all sections" of the PPQ may remain compliant with the instructions. Would the Government please confirm the intent of the instruction is to have Offerors complete only Section I of the PPQ for the represented contract, while Sections II and III should be completed by the assessing official? | L.5.1.2, Part B, p78 of 94 | The Offeror shall complete all sections of the Attachment 4 PPQ and Cover Letter, unless the section specifically states it should be completed by the evaluator. The Offeror shall complete all Section I fields and the evaluator shall complete all Section II and III fields. | Y | L.5.1.2, Part B | |
| 32 | Will the Government please confirm that offerors are permitted to use tables for the majority of their Volume III - Part A,C,D file? | L.5.1.2 | All formatting requirements are detailed in Section L. Upon meeting these requirements, Offerors should utilize their business judgment to determine how best to organize and format their proposals. | N | ||
| 33 | In Part B - Past Performance Information for Recent and Relevant Contracts, the second paragraph opens with an instruction to provide three formal performance evalutaions if available. The context contained within the same paragraph (and by Table 1.1) does not appear to support the interpretation that Offerors shall submit more than one evaluation (CPAR or PPQ) per reference. Would removing the word "three" from the first sentence, so that the first sentence reads: "The Offeror shall provide formal evaluations if available," appropriately instruct Offerors to submit formal contract evaluations (if available) and remove the possible interpretation that offerors are permitted to submit more than one evaluation per reference? | L.5.1.2, Part B, p77 of 94 | As stated in Section L.5.1.2, the Offeror shall provide three formal performance evaluations if available. Given there may be more than one formal performance evaluation on the same effort this does not contradict the rest of the paragraph. Pursuant to FAR 15.302(a)(2)(i) this allows the Government to better assess general trends in contractor's performance. | N | ||
| 34 | If Offerors are submitting PPQs, will the Government please confirm Offerors need to include only one PPQ per reference? | L.5.1.2 CPARS | Confirmed. | N | ||
| 35 | Will the Government please clarify the requirement to identify associated Task Orders on an IDIQ? Do offers need to identify relevant TO #s and Values in both the Part A Summary and Part B PP Description? If required with Part B PP Descirption, will the Government please extend the page count to Part B to two-pages, as IDIQs may have many relevant TOs to identify and list. | Volume III: Past Performance Volume (L.5.1.2) | If the Task Order #s and values cannot fit in the one page Past Performance Description, the Task Order #'s and associated values may be included as an addendum to the Part B Past Performance Description. The addendum should be limited to the Task Order #s and associated values only. On multiple award IDIQs/BPAs, identification of Task Orders should be limited to the Task Orders the Offeror performed, unless the reference is for a subcontractor in which case the identification should be limited to Task Orders the subcontractor performed. | Y | L.2.2. | |
| 36 | Will the Government please confirm work pre-dating the prior three years is considered recent as long as the associated contract/task order was active within the past three years? | Volume III: Past Performance Volume (L.5.1.2) | As stated in Section M.2.3.1., to be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. In other words, performance must be ongoing or performed in the 3 year period preceding the date of the issuance of the solicitation. | N | ||
| 37 | Will the Government please clarify the three year recency requirement as it relates to task orders? Are offerors required to demonstrate that each referenced task order was active within the past three years, or only that the overall IDIQ was active within the past three years? | Volume III: Past Performance Volume (L.5.1.2) | Section L.5.1.2. has been revised to clarify that if submitting an IDIQ or BPA as one past performance reference, only recent Task/Call Orders need to be described and presented. Please review M.2.3.1. for recency requirements, which apply to Task Orders. The time performance occurred and not the active period of the Contract/Task Order is the determining factor. | Y | L.5.1.2. | |
| 38 | Where an Offeror's performance has not been formally evaluated, the RFP instructs Offerors to obtain a performance evalutaion by having an assessing official complete a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 4). Does the Government specify any criteria for circumstances that potentially disqualify an assessing official as an acceptable source of an Offeror's performance? If yes, would the Government please provide the criteria? | General Past Performance | There are no criteria for assessing officials and the Government will not predetermine how it will address potential irregularities or fact specific issues prior to review of the proposals. As stated in Section L.5.1.2, "the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror like interviews with Contracting Officers, CORs, or other Government or commercial customers. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror." | N | ||
| 39 | The RFP establishes the Government's preference for formal performance assessments over the PPQ if a formal assessment is available. In single-award IDIQ contracts, the Government may issue a CPAR at the IDIQ level rather than issue individual CPARs for each Task Order. If an Offeror references one Task Order from a single-award IDIQ and a CPAR does not exist for that specific Task Order, does the Government still prefer the formal IDIQ-level CPAR over a PPQ for the individual Task Order? | General Past Performance | If the reference is a Task Order, the performance assessment should be for the Task Order. If a formal evaluation is available for the reference, it should be provided in lieu of the PPQ. | N | ||
| 40 | We understand each volume shall include a more detailed Table of Contents IAW L.2.2.5. However, the Table of Contents requirement and Part X identifier for a Table of Contents appears to be missing for Volume IV Cost/Price in L.2.2 Table 1.1; and is also missing from L.6. |
| Should a Table of Contents be included in Vol IV Cost/Price, and if so, would the Government clarify if this Table of Contents is to be entitled “Part A Table of Contents”, and the remaining subsequent Sections should be renamed as “Part B Cost/Price Narrative”, “Part C Government Provided Excel Workbook”, and “Part D Sanitized Proposal”, as it appears L.2.2.5 conflicts with L.2.2 Table 1.1 and L.6 specific to Volume IV Cost/Price? | (PRICING) L.2.2 Table 1.1; L.2.2.5: L.6 | As stated in Section L.2.2.5, each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents (TOC) to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. The Volume III parts should correspond to the table in Section L.2.2. There are no requirements for the title of the Volume IV TOC. Aside from the Section L requirements, the titling and organization of the volume is at the Offeror's discretion | N |
| 41 | The government states "Any labor categories in Attachment 2 that are not proposed as part of the Offeror’s solution to the requirements detailed in the Notional Task Order PWS (Attachment 9), should be priced in a separate tab. All labor categories included in Attachment 2 shall be priced. Proposed labor category rates will be included in the IDIQ as ceiling rates for each labor category. Pricing shall not be provided in any other part of the proposal. |
| Question - As the CY1 through CY5 worksheets in Attachment 6 are populating the hourly rate for each applicable labor category from the "Fixed and CPFF Labor Rates" worksheets, will this suffice the requirement of pricing all labor categories without having to add a seperate "tab" as referenced above? The notional task will be incorporated on the CY1 & CY2 worksheets, but the offeror's IDIQ rates for all performance years will be populated throughout the workbook with this approach. | (PRICING) L.6.1 General Instructions; Attachment 9 Notional Task Order; Attachment 6 | Yes, this is acceptable but please review the response to Question #89. | N |
| 42 | The Government states " In task orders, subcontractors fully burdened labor rates will be subject to the prime Offeror's fixed priced ceiling rates for fixed priced Task Orders/CLINs. |
| Question - Will the government amend this requirement to reflect "In task orders, subcontractors fully burdened labor rates will be subject to the prime Offeror's fixed and cost plus fixed fee ceiling rates for both fixed price and cost plus fixed fee Task Orders/CLINs? | (PRICING) L.6.1 General Instructions | The fully loaded FFP rate will act as a ceiling rate and no revisions are being made to Section L. as a result of this question. | N | ||
| 43 | Will the Government please remove the requirement for subcontractor fixed and CPFF rate worksheets from the Attachment 6 as only the prime Offeror is responsible for submitting a sealed package? | (PRICING) Attachment 6 - Cost & Price Template_v2 | The subcontractor fixed and CPFF worksheets are required. Subcontractors may submit these worksheets directly to the Government by the proposal submission deadline. | ||
| N | |||||
| 44 | Will the government please confirm that all OCONUS labor related other direct costs (ODC) such as, but not limited to post differential, danger differential, per diem, COLA, HOLA, educational allowances will be bid at the task order level and are not required for the IDIQ submission? | (PRICING) B.7 Work Outside the Contiguous United States (OCONUS) | This is correct. Any uplifts will be captured in the ODCs of the Task Orders. For the purposes of the IDIQ and Notional Tasks, Offerors should assume that all uplifts are included in the ODC plugs and propose Labor rates without this included. | N | |
| 45 | The government states on the instructions worksheet of Attachment 6: "Do not change the Government provided formulas in the workbook. Include all formulas. Hard numbered workbooks will be rejected as deficient and non-responsive and ineligble for further consideration." |
* In each of the CY worksheets, the formula for Fixed price Fringe is being linked to the applicable CY CPFF fringe value on the Prime Labor CPFF Rates worksheet.
* In each of the CY worksheets, the formula for Fixed price Overhead is being linked to the apllicable CY CPFF overhead value on the Prime Labor CPFF Rates worksheet.
*In each of the CY worksheets, the formula for Fixed price Subcontract & Material Handling is being linked to the apllicable CY CPFF overhead value on the Prime Labor CPFF Rates worksheet.
*In each of the CY worksheets, the formula for Fixed price General & Administrative is being linked to the apllicable CY CPFF overhead value on the Prime Labor CPFF Rates worksheet.
| Question - Will the government consider amending the Fixed Price Ceiling Rates and Prime labor CPFF Rates worksheets so the Offeror can build each of the thirty (30) labor category rates horizontally, and applying the Offeror's applicable fringe/indirect rates in this fashion? To account for the remaining CY labor rate buildups, the Offeror can simply build up their additional CY rates vertically so the Government does not have to build multiple CY Rate worksheets. If this approach is accepted, then in CY3, CY4, and CY5 where the notional task is not incorporated, all 30 labor categories will have a populated bill rate as the government requested. | (PRICING) Attachment 6 - Cost & Price Template_v2 | Offerors are provided the Government templates to ensure consistent cost submissions among all offerors. Although the use of the Government template is strongly encouraged, Offers may utilize proprietary templates. However, the Offeror is cautioned that any errors, omissions, or failure to include all requisite detail may result in a determination that the submission is non-compliant. Non-compliant offers may be eliminated from further consideration. Please see the response to question #89. | N | ||
| 46 | To enable delivery of the specified VDC global node in Bahrain, can the Government include a worksheet within the cost and price template for offerors to propose the list of hardware and software aligned to their technical approach (some format to display part numbers; description; qty; unit cost; total) to itemize proposed VDC solution for Bahrain as ODC cost in CY1? Ref. requirement in 6.2. Subtask 2. | (PRICING) Attachment 6 - Cost & Price Template_v2 | No changes are being made as a result of this question. | N | |
| 47 | To enable delivery of the specified VDC global nodes in Germany and Japan, can the Government include a worksheet within the cost and price template for offerors to provide a list of hardware and software aligned to their technical approach (some format to display part numbers; description; qty) to itemize the proposed VDC solution as a service to propose capacity services costs in CY1; CY2 and the 6mo ext? Recommend including a unit cost of per month or per year to calculate total proposed capacity services cost for CY1; CY2; and 6mo ext. Ref. requirement in 6.2. Subtask 2. | (PRICING) Attachment 6 - Cost & Price Template_v2 | No changes are being made as a result of this question. | N | |
| 48 | Assuming the Government is amenable to allowing offerors to include their VDC price build up as a separate worksheet in the cost and price template, will the Government sanitize pricing and provide list of hardware and software to technical evaluators to review when assessing 6.2.2 Subtask 2 – Virtual Data Centers (VDC) and Associated Enclaves? | ||||
| (PRICING) Attachment 6 - Cost & Price Template_v2 | No changes are being made as a result of this question. | N | |||
| 49 | Section I Clause 52.217-9 states 'The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed five (5) years from the date of award.'(RFP emphasis). Section L 6.1.2 and L.6.2.5 note 5 years with 1 six month option. Would the Government please confirm that the total contract duration is 5 years and 1 six month option as written IAW FAR 52.217-8 throughout Section L are correct, as it appears the FAR clause Section I 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000) is in conflict with FAR 52.217-9 | L.6.1.2; L.6.2.5; Section I 52.217-9 | FAR 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000) does not include the FAR 52.217-8 six month extension. | N | |
| 50 | The Government states "Offeror shall submit its current Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) and, if applicable, a more recent Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP). If a Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) has been received responsive to a submitted FPRR, that must be submitted as well. Cost or pricing data beyond that required by instruction specific to L.6.0 Volume IV– FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE VOLUME shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your cost/price position. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal. |
| Question - To justify cost realism, will the Government please require Prime Offeror's to supply supporting documentation for their proposed direct labor rates utilized to create the Offeror's IDIQ ceiling rates such as salary survey data or employee payroll records? | (PRICING) L.6.1.4 Supplemental Cost/Price Information / L.6.1.5 | As you stated: "All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price Volume." Information such as salary survey data or employee payroll records is the type of information which supports and documents a cost/price position. | N | ||
| 51 | Regarding the requirement that offerors "clearly define and describe the function of each labor category proposed." - it is our understanding that the Government desires a narrative identifying the appropriate labor category and hours for the various notional Task Order PWS tasks and subtasks, but that Offerors are not requested to provide a narrative describing the labor categories themselves as this information was provided by the Government in Attachment 2. Will the Government please confirm or clarify this understanding? | M.2.2.3 - Subfactor 3 | Confirmed. | N | |
| 52 | The Government's cost template separates "Subtask 1 - Systems Engineering" and other subtasks requiring systems engineers. The requirement "Subtask 1" merely states that Offerors are to provide systems engineers. Will the Government please clarify the task in Subtask 1 to enable Offerors to make an estimate? The current requirement for subtask 1 reads as a compliance statement rather than a work requirement. | Cost Template/Notional Task Order PWS - 6.2.1 | Please see the responses to Questions #53, 109, 116, 118-126, 131-137, and 139. Please review IDIQ PWS Task 6.2. | N | |
| 53 | To ensure offerors propose innovative and functional hardware/software and capacity services solutions for the VDC nodes referenced in the Sample task order, for 6.2.2 Subtask 2 – Virtual Data Centers (VDC) and Associated Enclaves, can the Government confirm that requirements for these VDC nodes are defined per the signed Mission Partner Environment LEXICON Version 1.0 August 12, 2016 DoD CIO document? According to that document, a VDC node is officially defined as follows: |
A Mission Partner Environment – Information System (MPE-IS) implementation of a Software Defined Data Center that supports the rapid provisioning of mission enclaves and supporting services such that all mission enclaves configured within a VDC are isolated from each other. The instantiation of Data Center Virtualization (DCV) technology within a physical DoD data center. The VDC virtualizes the key elements of a physical data center: processing, networking, security, and storage. Virtualizing these elements enables multiple, logically separate SECRET//Releasable (SECRET//REL) mission enclaves to be rapidly established based on varying mission operations.
| Document Reference: https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/MPE-Lexicon_20160812_DISTRO.pdf | STO 6.2.2 | Confirmed | N | |||
| 54 | Will the Government confirm that all cryptographic hardware is to be assumed as GFE provided hardware and not included as any ODC costs? | STO 6.2.3 | Confirmed | N | ||
| 55 | Section I, Block 2 of the PPQ requests the "CAGE Code of Prime Contractor." Should Block 2 ever contain a CAGE code that does not belong to the entity listed in Block 1? This might occur if an Offeror is submitting a reference to work it performed as a subcontractor, for example. | Attachment 4 - Past Performance Questionnaire, Section I, Block 2 | Please provide the CAGE code of the prime contractor even if the entity listed in Block 1 is a subcontractor. | N | ||
| 56 | CLIN indicates Cost Type. Please confirm CLIN 0002 contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) as indicated in RFP Section B.4. | B, CLIN 0002; Page 4 of 94 | The CLIN structure is for the IDIQ award which allows for the flexibility of any type of cost reimbursable labor, including CPFF, to be utilized at the Task Order level. | N | ||
| 57 | An ISO/IEC 20000 Service Management Plan (SMP) deliverable is required as part of our proposal submission. Section C.6.1.1 states, “The Contractor shall develop an ISO/IEC 20000 SMP tailored to the specific services required under this Contract. The Contractor shall incorporate engineering and business best practices into its management of all services, releases and projects. The Contractor’s overall approach for integrating the two shall be described in the SMP.” However, no pages are allocated for this deliverable. As the SMP guides service management much like a Project Management Plan provides project governance, and typically range from 25 to 50 pages with topics including service scope, description, support windows, activities, efforts and resources, budgets, organization, team structure, and escalation, RACI matrices, dependencies, processes, templates, SLAs and KPIs, certifications, standards, regulatory laws and requirements, tools, Governance, risk management, etc.,in order to allow the Government to fully evaluate a comprehensive SMP and address quality and risk will the Government please remove the SMP from the 25-page technical approach limit, allow the Offeror to include the plan as an appendix to the Technical/Management Volume, and allocate an additional 30 pages to allow the Offeror the page space to adequately address the requirement for this draft deliverable? | C.6.1.1; Page 8 of 94 | Please see the response to Question #5. | Y | Section L.2.2, Table 1.1 | |
| 58 | Sections C.6.3.1, C.15, L.1.1.3, and L.3.5.11 require the contractor to be a “Certified Tier 3 Cybersecurity Service Provider (CSSP)”. DODI 8530.01 establishes that the DOD will designate CSSPs in accordance with DoD O-8530.01-M. Additionally, DoD O-8530.01M describes the process to gain a certification and accreditation for Computer Network Defense Service Providers (CNDSP) using Evaluator Scoring Metrics (current version is ESM 9.2). There is no mention of “Tiers” in any of these documents. However, DoDI O-8530.2 establishes a tiered CND C2 structure with USCYBERCOM at Tier 1 and the network of accredited CNDSPs at Tier 2 (according to the 8530 documents mentioned above). Each DoD information system is operated/managed by a Mission Owner (tier 3) which must be aligned with an accredited CNDSP. For example, DISA is a certified Tier 2 CNDSP. Tier 3 organizations consume services from the Tier 2 CNDSP. There does not appear to be a requirement for Tier 3 organizations to be certified IAW 8530.01M because they are not considered CNDSPs. The ESM criteria are defined for Tier 2 CNDSPs, not Tier 3 consumers. While tier 3 organizations do perform cyber security operations for their enclave (e.g. vulnerability scanning), there does not appear to be a requirement for them to be certified as CSSPs. Moreover, these are DoD Organizations that are certified as Tier 1 or Tier 2, and not contractors. Is it the Government’s intention for the Offeror to prove they provided CNDSP services as a part of a DoD organization certified according to 8530.10M and ESM 9.2? If not, please clarify. | C.6.3.1, second sentence, C.15, second sentence, L.1.1.3, second sentence, L.3.5.11; Page(s) 12 of 94, 25 of 94, 66 of 94, 74 of 94 | Please see the response to Question #1. | Y | RFP Section C.15, PWS Task 6.3.1, L.1.1.3, and L3.5.11 | |
| 59 | Place of Performance states, “Upon the COR’s approval, other potential CONUS/OCONUS work locations include Air Force facilities, Fairfax, VA; AFRICOM (Stuttgart, Germany), CENTCOM (Tampa, FL; Kuwait; Bahrain; Afghanistan), SOUTHCOM (Miami, FL), NORTHCOM (Colorado Spring, CO), SOCOM (Tampa, FL), JCSE (Tampa, FL), US Forces-Korea (USFK) (Youngsan AB, Osan AB, Kunsan AB, and Camp Humphries). Additional places of performance are to be determined based on customer requirements and real-world events.” Based on this description and the potential requirement for OCONUS work locations, will the Government please include FAR 52.228-3 Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act) and 52.228-4 Workers’ Compensation and War-Hazard Insurance Overseas to Section I: Clauses | C.9; Page 16 of 94 | No. Should this become necessary later, it will be handled via modification | N | ||
| 60 | Table 1.1 – Proposal Organization, under Volume II, Technical/Management Volume, Part C, identifies Contract Management Plan (CMP). However, L.4.2.2.3-Part C-Technical/Management approach has no instruction for a CMP. Is the reference to the CMP a reference to L.4.2.2.3.3-Subfactor 3: Contract Management and Task Order Management (PWS 6.1, Task Area 1)? If not, will the Government please provide both instruction and evaluation criteria for the required CMP? | L.2.2, Table 1.1; Page 68 of 94 | Please see the response to Question #5. | Y | Section L.2.2, Table 1.1 | |
| 61 | Section L.2.4 depicts the following Volume IV file names: |
• Volume IV: Shall be sent as two files labeled as follows:
o Company Name – Volume IV – Part A o Company Name – Volume IV – Part B o Company Name – Volume IV – Part C
| Will the Government please confirm that the requirement is for three files? | L.2.4; Page 71 of 94 | Yes three files are required. | Y | L.2.4. | ||
| 62 | Section L.3.5.1 states, “The Offeror's proposal must include a signed copy of the solicitation (to include all subsequent amendments) and completion of Sections A through K; refer to the specific submission instructions for Sections A-K below.” However, the instructions seem to conflict with the requirement for completion of Sections A through K by stating that “No submission is required…” for sections B and F, and section C not listed. Is it the Government’s intention that we submit a partial copy of the solicitation with only some sections in A-K included? Please clarify. | L.3.5.1 ; Page 73 of 94 | Not all sections require completion and the instructions clarify which sections Offerors are required to complete. The Offeror's proposal must include a signed copy of the solicitation (to include all subsequent amendments) in its entirety. | N | ||
| 63 | Will the Government please confirm that the title of this section should be “Completed Copy of Solicitation” rather than Representation and Certifications as they are addressed in Section K: Representation and Certifications under section L.3.5.7? | L.3.5.1 Representations and Certifications; Page 73 of 94 | No changes are being made to the section title as a result of this question. | N | ||
| 64 | Section L.3.5.5 directs the Offeror to “See Section G.” However, this section encompasses post-award information and has no specific requirements for the Offeror to complete and submit with proposal. Will the Government please provide clear instruction guiding the Offeror through the requirements for Section G? | L.3.5.5 Section G – Contract Administrative Data; Page 73 of 94 | There are pre-award requirements detailed in Section G., such as Section G.3. Cost Accounting System. | N | ||
| 65 | Section L.3.5.9 states, “Per the RFP, “All prime Contractors shall include in the proposal a completed Form DD254. Offerors shall complete Blocks 6, 7 and 8 of the DD254 with the appropriate information for their company. A separate DD254 shall be completed for each subcontractor, if applicable. Failure to present an acceptable DD254 with the proposal will deem the proposal non-responsive and it may be removed from further consideration.” Block 8, Actual Performance states, “See Block 13” and appears to have been completed by the Government. Will the Government please provide instruction for completing this item? | L.3.5.9; Page 73 of 94 | Block 8 includes subsections a., b., and c. Please complete the Block 8 subsections b. and c. | N | ||
| 66 | Section L.3.5.9 states, “All prime Contractors shall include in the proposal a completed Form DD254. Offerors shall complete Blocks 6, 7 and 8 of the DD254 with the appropriate information for their company. A separate DD254 shall be completed for each subcontractor, if applicable. Failure to present an acceptable DD254 with the proposal will deem the proposal non-responsive and it may be removed from further consideration.” Will the Government please provide direction for completing block 7, should the Offeror fill out and a separate Draft DD254 for each subcontractor with their proposal? | L.3.5.9. DD254 Security Classification; Page 73 of 94 | The Offeror should complete a separate DD254 for each subcontractor for submission with its proposal. | N | ||
| 67 | L.4.2.2.3, last paragraph, states, “The Offeror’s proposal shall describe how the Offeror intends to meet or exceed the requirements detailed in the Notional Task Order (Attachment 9, Notional Task Order). The Offeror shall include an estimate of the personnel hours, by labor category and level, required for each task and subtask included in the Notional Task Order.” According to both instruction and evaluation, both the IDIQ PWS and Notional Task Order PWS require full solution descriptions to be compliant. Additionally, the IDIQ response requires the functions of each assigned labor category, the descriptions of which take 9 pages in Attachment 2. The 25-page limit is inadequate to compliantly address both requirements. Will the Government please remove the Notional Task Order response from the required 25-page IDIQ PWS Technical/Management response page count and add an additional 15 pages for the Offeror to compliantly address the Notional Task Order requirements? | L.4.2.2.3; Page 75 of 94 | Please see the revised page limitations detailed in the response to Question #5. | Y | Section L.2.2, Table 1.1 | |
| 68 | The RFP states, “The Government shall include an Offeror’s Service Management Plan (SMP) and Key Personnel that meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS.” There appear to be words missing from this sentence. Will the Government please review and clarify? | L.4.2.2.3.3,C.6.1.1; Pages 76 of 94, 8 of 94 | The sentence in L.4.2.2.3.3 is revised as follows: "The Government Offeror shall include a an Offeror’s Service Management Plan (SMP) and Key Personnel that meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS." | Y | L.4.2.2.3.3 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .