Attach 32 Q A RFP.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 59 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Defense Enclave Services (DES) RFP
- Solicitation number
- HC104720R0014
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
This document provides details about a forthcoming solicitation from the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for Defense Enclave Services (DES). The DES requirement is anticipated to be a single-award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract with a ceiling of $11.2 billion over a 10-year period. The contract will include firm-fixed-price, labor hour, and cost reimbursable line items. DISA aims to award the contract in the first quarter of fiscal year 2022. As part of the Fourth Estate Network Optimization initiative, the DES contract will consolidate common use information technology systems, functions, and program elements for 22 Defense Agencies and Field Activities under DISA. The contractor will manage, operate, and support a standardized network architecture to improve security, availability, and reliability for these agencies. Key services include integrated IT services, network architecture design and administration, and support for agencies transitioning from legacy systems. An industry day was held in September 2020 featuring a video and transcript with draft request for proposal documents. Questions about the solicitation should be directed to the provided email address.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 73 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Sheet1
| UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | |||||
| Solicitation # HC1047-20-R-0014 | |||||
| Defense Enclave Services | |||||
| QUESTION & RESPONSE TEMPLATE | |||||
| Question # | Questions / Comments | RFP Reference | Government Response | RFP Change Required (Y/N) | Location of Change |
| 272 | "Factor 1, Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation and Commitment factor, will be evaluated based upon the Offeror’s proposal to the Volume V, Part A" Please confirm that this means Factor 1, Subfactor 3 should not be included in Volume II. | L.4.2.4.PartC | Table 1.1 has been edited to remove the small business participation section from Volume II Section C, since it was already included in Volume V, part A. | Y | Section L.2.2 Table 1.1 |
| 273 | Column B of the TO1 CLIN structure lists several CLINs that do not align with the TO1 SOO (Table 1). The SOO indicates that "Planning" and "Migration" will be completed for DTIC and DPAA, and "Planning" will be completed for DMEA; however, CLINs for each of these appear in Attach 20. Please clarify if these activities will be completed under the existing DoDNet contract. | Attach 28, "CLIN Summary" tab | See revised Attach 9 - SOO where it states that Table 1 - "represents FY22 status; follow on activities are expected to occur in out years." Attachment 28 has also been revised to be consistent with Table 1 in attachment 9. | Y | Attach 28 and Attach 9 |
| 274 | During the AFCEA event, Mr. Sherman noted that the DAFAs had a significant number of civilian and contractor personnel currently performing work. Does the Government plan to have those civilian personnel support DES on TO1, and if so, how will this be delineated from the contractor? | The Contractor is responsible for performing the work described in each task order. | |||
| 275 | Section 3 of the TO 001 SOO indicates "Three (3) agencies Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) and Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Accounting Agency (DPAA) and DISA Headquarters (HQ) will require only sustainment services, as migration will be completed under a separate DoDNet Services contract awarded in FY2020." However, Table 1 in the TO 001 SOO indicates that many DISA field sites will also require planning and/or migration. In order to ensure that bidders include appropriate scope in their TO 001 pricing and so that the Government will be able to adequately compare pricing, please clarify if Table 1 should be used as the baseline for the TO 001 scope of work. | Attach 9 TO 001 SOO 12032020 | See response to question #276. | ||
| 276 | Section 3 of the TO 001 SOO indicates "Three (3) agencies (Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) and Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Accounting Agency (DPAA) and DISA Headquarters (HQ) will require only sustainment services, as migration will be completed under a separate DoDNet Services contract awarded in FY2020." However, Table 1 in the TO 001 SOO indicates that many DISA field sites will also require planning and/or migration. Attach 28 DES TO 0001 CLIN Structure 12082020 has CLINs for planning, migration, and sustainment at all five agencies. Please clarify if Table 1 in the TO 001 SOO should be used as the baseline for the TO 001 scope of work. If so, should the CLINs for planning and migration at agencies only requiring sustainment be deleted or zeroed out in the pricing spreadsheet? | Attach 9 TO 001 SOO 12032020, Attach 28 DES TO 0001 CLIN Structure 12082020 | Table 1 in the TO 001 SOO should be used as the baseline for the TO 001 scope of work. The CLINs for planning and migration at agencies only requiring sustainment can be zeroed out in the pricing spreadsheet. | Y | Attach 9 T001 SOO |
| 277 | Section 4.b. of the TO 001 SOO specifies exit criteria for Planning, Migration, and Sustainment Activities. The exit criteria for Migration is IOC achieved and ready to image user workstations. Given Table 1 and the Migration exit criteria, should bidders assume that all workstations will need to be imaged by the DES contractor or will some workstations have been imaged under the previous contract? If some imaging will be completed, please specify the percentage of workstations requiring imaging so that bidders can accurately price sustainment and the Government will be able to effectively compare pricing. | Attach 9 TO 001 SOO 12032020 | If the agency is already migrated then workstations do not need to be re-imaged a second time. The need for reimaging is so that computers are on a common baseline when introduced to the new domain. If other methods are available for baseline standardization, Offerors are encouraged to address in their proposal. | ||
| 278 | The labor categories provided in Attachment 27 do not include skills for voice, video, nor storage. Does the Government plan to add labor categories as those tasks are awarded on future TOs? | Attach 27 Labor Category Descriptions 120320 | Please refer to Labor Categories #1, #24, #28, #29, and #30. | N | |
| 279 | Bidders solutions may require additional labor categories beyond those specified in Attachment 27. Will the Government consider adding LCATs after award? | Attach 27 Labor Category Descriptions 120320 | The Government does not intend to add additional labor categories at this time. | ||
| 280 | Section L.4.2.4 of the RFP indicates that "All other SOO aspects should be incorporated in the PWS, although not evaluated." However, Section M.2.1 indicates that the IDIQ PWS is the highest evaluated subfactor in the Technical Factor. Please clarify if the IDIQ PWS will be evaluated. | RFP HC104720R0014 final | That sentence is revised to state: "In order to be eligible for award, the offerors’ proposals shall address all aspects of the PWS. With regard to the best value analysis for the award decision, the evaluation factors and sub factors will be used in the trade off analysis." | Y | L.4.2.4 |
| 281 | The answer to the Draft RFP question #12 indicates that funds will only be obligated at the TO level. Given that, please clarify that M.2.1.1 Factor 1, Subfactor 1 is asking for a Staffing Plan and Staffing Schedule for TO1 (a) and a Transition Plan for TO1 (e). | Attach 30 QA Draft RFP_12032020 | The vendor question is unclear. Funding and factors are not inconsistent. The minimum guarantee remains at $500 which will cover the kickoff meeting and the and the contract level small business contract level reporting requirement as stated in Q 12 of the DRFP and attachment 8, CLIN structure. | ||
| 282 | The RFP and TO 001 SOO indicate that Service Desk may be in a future TO. Given that, please clarify that M.2.1.1 Factor 1, Subfactor 1 is asking for future Tier 1 (b), Tier 2 (c), and DoDNet Migration Staffing (d) in new TOs. | RFP HC104720R0014 final, Attach 9 TO 001 SOO 12032020 | See response to question #283. | ||
| 283 | The RFP and TO 001 SOO indicate that Service Desk may be in a future TO. When does the Government anticipate a Service Desk TO on DES? Timing of the Service Desk moving to DES may impact vendors' solutions and responses to M.2.2.4.a. | RFP HC104720R0014 final, Attach 9 TO 001 SOO 12032020 | The PoP of the current Global Service Desk contract ends 10 September 2023. The Government has not determined at this time whether all option periods will be exercised. | ||
| 284 | Please clarify demarcation of responsibilities between DAFA civilian IT support and the DES contractor for Tier 2 support. | Attach 9 TO 001 SOO 12032020 | The Contractor is responsible for performing the work described in each task order. | ||
| 285 | The DISA ITSM Organization implies that DISA DES provides Level 1, Tier 3 support and Level 2, Tier 2 and 3 support. Please clarify demarcation of responsibilities between GSD provider, DISA, and DES contractor for Service Desk. | Reading Library 9 - DISA ITSM Organization | See response to question #284. | ||
| 286 | DISA’s language for Pass/Fail Evaluation Criteria Factor 1, Subfactor 2 concerning ATO suggests that there will be one ATO for Defense Enclave Services, an assumption which is further affirmed in DISA’s responses to Q+A, where DISA responds that there will be one Security Plan or System Security Plan for DES. At the same time, it is not clear whether the DES prime integrator will be responsible for developing that unified security plan, and achieving ATO, or inherited that unified security plan and ATO from the DoDNet prime contractor. In addition, the language for the IDIQ SOO suggests that DISA may inherit SSPs and ATOs from legacy 4th estate agencies before migrating those agencies to DES. Will the government clarify whether the prime integrator will be responsible for sustaining legacy SSPs and ATOs while they transition to a unified SSP and ATO is achieved? | The DES provider will inherit a single ATO and set of supporting artifacts for DoDNet, and will be responsible for maintaining it throughout the lifecycle of this contract. That may include updates and/or modifications to expand scope at new sites and DAFAs are migrated, development of new supporting artifacts, and leveraging reciprocity from existing ATOs throughout the 4E. | |||
| 287 | DISA’s language for Pass/Fail Evaluation Criteria Factor 1, Subfactor 2 concerning ATO suggests that there will be one ATO for Defense Enclave Services, an assumption which is further affirmed in DISA’s responses to Q+A, where DISA responds that there will be one Security Plan or System Security Plan for DES. At the same time, it is not clear whether the DES prime integrator will be responsible for developing that unified security plan, and achieving ATO, or inherited that unified security plan and ATO from the DoDNet prime contractor. In addition, the language for the IDIQ SOO suggests that DISA may inherit SSPs and ATOs from legacy 4th estate agencies before migrating those agencies to DES. Will the government clarify whether the prime integrator will the prime contractor be inheriting the baseline for this unified SSP and ATO from the DoDNet contractor? | M.2.1.2 | The DES provider will inherit a single ATO and set of supporting artifacts for DoDNet, and will be responsible for maintaining it throughout the lifecycle of this contract. That may include updates and/or modifications to expand scope at new sites and DAFAs are migrated, development of new supporting artifacts, and leveraging reciprocity from existing ATOs throughout the 4E. | ||
| 288 | In Factor 2, Subfactor 3, the government requests an approach for achieving a CCRI score of 3.0 or below but it is our understanding that this numeric reference is to the indicator of concern scale, and not the CCRI grade or “score,” which is rated on a scale of 1-100: will the government clarify its intent here? | M.2.2.3 | Technology area scoring is calculated using vulnerability findings from a variable number of technology area reviews (i.e. HBSS, Network, Scanning, etc.). Additional information is for official use only, consequently cannot be provided as a response to this solicitation. | N | |
| 289 | The RFP states the contractor’s mission-essential contractor services plan shall be included in Part D. Respectfully request this be moved to Part C to align with the staffing Subfactor and the acceptable/unacceptable evaluation criteria. | Ref: RFP L.4.2.4 | The Government has reviewed your question. The requested RFP modification will not be made. | ||
| 290 | The RFP states "The contractor shall submit a Transition Plan as part of their proposal". However, Table 1.1 Proposal Organization does not provide guidance on where this plan should be incorporated. Will the government consider adding the "Transition Plan" to Volume I with no limit page count? | RFP Section 6.A | Per table 1.1 it should be included in Volume II, Part C. | N | |
| 291 | Section 7 (objectives) speaks to Local Area Network but not Wide Area Network. While the DRFP Q&A indicates several times that DISA will provide the transport, can the government confirm the WAN edge routers at each DES location will be included in the scope of this contract, such that offerers will make appropriate configurations for integration with middle tier security systems? Similarly, the sample DAFA architecture in Attachment 12 does not depict any routers for JRSS migrated locations, is that meant to imply those systems are outside the scope of the DES program? | RFP Attach 9 Section 7 | Network design and architecture is within the scope of DES. DISA leverages DISN services for its Wide Area Network services to include JRSS/S-JRSS, traditional NIPR/SIPR, etc. However, everything at any DoDNet location that interfaces with these DISN Services, such as premise routers, crypto, intrusion detection, firewalls are within scope. In the case of JRSS/S-JRSS, although there are not local or physical premise routers, intrusion detection systems and firewalls, there are virtual contexts of each within the stack that are within the scope of this contract. | ||
| 292 | The architecture diagrams notionally depict laptops, printers/MFDs, and phones in what appears to be a common VLAN. Existing STIGs require segmentation of dissimilar endpoints such as those depicted, are we properly interpreting that such segmentation has not been implemented and, as such, will be the responsibility of the DES contractor to complete? | Attach 12 | The diagram is a generalization of the standard VLAN implementation. Dissimilar devices are assigned to separate VLANs depending on their presence at a site. | ||
| 293 | The following locations are included in Attach 21, App F DES TO 0001 DAFA Data Calls, but do not appear to be included in either Attach 9 (in Agency Migration Status table) or Att. 17: |
DTIC - San Diego, CA DMA - Washington, DC DMA - Guam DMA - Darmstadt, Germany DMA - Yokota AB, Japan DMA - Vilseck, Germany DMA - Diego Garcia DPAA - Yongsan, Korea DPAA - Thailand (Utapao, Royal Thai Navy Airbase) DISA - Hagerstown, MD DISA - Yongsan, Korea Will the Government please provide the migration status for each of these locations, indicate whether these locations are included under other locations already specified in Attach 9, or state that these locations are not included in Task Order 0001? Attachment 9 - TO 0001 SOO;
Attachment 17 Appendix B - DES TO 0001 Places of Performance;
| Attachment 21 SOO Appendix F - DES TO 0001 DAFA Data Calls | DTIC - San Diego is one remote user. Attachments 17 and 21 have been revised. | Y | Attachments 17 and 21 | |||
| 294 | Attachment 15 (DMA tab) indicates there are 1,544 users at DMA, while Attachment 21 (DMA tab) shows 3,050 users. It also appears there are some DMA locations in Attachment 21 that are not included in Attachment 15 and one location in Attachment 15 that isn't in Attachment 21. Will the Government please specify which attachment contains the correct information or provide revised attachment(s)? | Attachment 15 SOO Appendix F - DES IDIQ DAFA Data Calls; | ||||
| Attachment 21 SOO Appendix F - DES TO 0001 DAFA Data Calls | Attachments 15 and 21 have been revised. | Y | Attachments 15 and 21 revised | |||
| 295 | With the addition of an SCRM Plan in the Final RFP, will the Government increase page count by 10 to accommodate this addition? | The Government has already increased the page count from the draft RFP to the final RFP as a result of the inclusion of the SCRM plan addition. | ||||
| 296 | What is the problem? Why now? What is the driving factor for the new Solution? | In a memorandum, titled “Fourth Estate Network Optimization (4ENO) Execution Guidance,” the Deputy Secretary of Defense granted DISA the authority beginning 1 October 2019, to direct the transition of each DAFA from disparate, legacy common use IT services and assets into a single service provider (SSP) environment. The DES contract will provide the management and technical expertise to provide standardized, responsive, and innovative IT services focused on mission value and user network experience, while improving security, network availability, and reliability for Fourth Estate agencies. | ||||
| 297 | When is the Pre Bid Proposal Conference meeting scheduled? | A Virtual Pre-Solicitation Conference was released on beta.sam.gov in September 2020. Due to COVID 19 the pre-solicitation only consisted of a video and a transcript. | ||||
| 298 | Are you looking to buy an off the shelf solution or Build a custom solution? | This is a services procurement, please refer to RFP and attachments for details | ||||
| 299 | What is your budget? | The estimated contract ceiling is $11.2B, and the Total Acquisition Value is $11.7B. This includes the 52.217-8 6-month optional extension. | ||||
| 300 | Will the hosting be On-Prem or Cloud? | DoDNet: On Premises | ||||
| 301 | Will the incumbent be bidding on this or are you looking for a new vendor? | This is a new contract. | ||||
| 302 | What are your requirements? | Please reference Final RFP and Attachments. | ||||
| 303 | What is the scope of the project? | Please reference Final RFP and Attachments. | ||||
| 304 | Does the new solution integrate with existing systems? | Please reference Final RFP and Attachments. | ||||
| 305 | What is your timeline? | Please reference Final RFP and Attachments. | ||||
| 306 | Who is the point person on the project? | The Government has a team of contracting staff working on the procurement, please address all correspondence to: disa.meade.PLD.mbx.defense-enclave-services@mail.mil. | ||||
| 307 | Who are your key stakeholders? Do they have adequate representation and input? | Please reference Final RFP and Attachments. | ||||
| 308 | Who are your key stakeholders? Do they have adequate representation and input? | Please reference Final RFP and Attachments. | ||||
| 309 | In Attachment 9, Section 3, Agency Migration Status Table 1, each location has only one activity marked. Please clarify if offerors are only to bid the marked activity? For example, the DISA Elmendorf AFB location has only planning selected. Do we bid planning only for DISA Elemendorf AFB, or do we also include subsequent activities for migration and sustainment? | Attach 9 TO 0001 SOO 12032020, Section 3 - Agency Migration Status tables | Attachment 9, Table 1 represents FY22 status; follow on activities are expected to occur in out years. | y | Attach 9 table 1 | |
| 310 | In Attachment 9, Section 3, Agency Migration Status Table 1 please provide the site survey reports and migration plans for the locations that are marked as Migration. | Attach 9 TO 0001 SOO 12032020, Section 3 - Agency Migration Status tables | Site surveys, reports and migration plans are tasks/deliverables to be provided by the DES awardee. | |||
| 311 | In Attachment 9, Section 3, Agency Migration Status Table 1, please provide the migration completion reports for locations that are marked as sustainment. | Attach 9 TO 0001 SOO 12032020, Section 3 - Agency Migration Status tables | Migration completion reports will be available during the transition period. | |||
| 312 | The Service Definitions/Responsibilities for DES in Attachment 31 provides information on all the IDIQ services, not just TO 001. Please confirm that these definitions are applicable to the IDIQ performance areas. | Attach 31 SOO Appendix A-DES TO 001 Services Summary 120220 | See revised Attach 31. | Y | Attach 31 | |
| 313 | TO 001 SOO Appendix A Service Summary lists two activities under Storage Service yet there are 5 activities listed in the Services Definition/Responsibilities. One of the added areas, Backup and Recovery, appears to be a duplicate for the Backup & Storage activity under IT Services Management. Please confirm that these 3 additional activities in the definitions under Storage Services should be removed and update Attachment 31 accordingly. | Attach 31 SOO Appendix A-DES TO 001 Services Summary 120220 | See revised Attach 31. | Y | Attach 31 | |
| 314 | The response to question 136 provided an estimated number of VIPs to be supported at each agency and the TO 001 SOO Appendix A Services Definition provides a definition for VIP Tier. However, the VIP Tier is not listed under End User Support in the Services Summary table. Please update the table accordingly in Attachment 31 - Task Order #0001 Services Summary. | |||||
| Attach 14 SOO Appendix E - DES IDIQ PWS Template 12012020; Attach 21 SOO Appendix F - DES TO 0001 DAFA Data Calls 10132020; | ||||||
| Attach 31 SOO Appendix A-DES TO 001 Services Summary 120220 | TO #0001 does not include VIP Tier Support; see revised Attach 31. | Y | Attach 31 | |||
| 315 | In the Task Order #001 SOO - Constraints and Risks, states that Service Desk Support is not in scope. Please confirm, with regard to Service Desk Tier 0-III that aligns to Reading Library 9, artifact DoDNet L1 layers and DISA L2 layers represent in scope services such as End User Support and ITSM as defined in Attachment 31. | Attach 9 TO 0001 SOO 12032020 ( Section 4 Constraints and Risks); Attach 20 SOO Appendix E - DES TO1 PWS template 120320; Attach 31 SOO Appendix A-DES TO 001 Services Summary 120220 | Reading Library 9 relates to the Service Desk, which is not in scope of TO #0001. | |||
| 316 | Please confirm that the End User Support services listed in Attachment 31 are to be performed on site at all locations listed in Table 1 of Attachment 9. | Attachment 9 - Task Order #001 SOO - Constraints and Risks - K, Attachment 20 Task Order #0001 PWS Template, Attachment 31 - Task Order #001 Services Summary | End User Support services listed in Attachment 31 are to be performed on site at all locations. | |||
| 317 | Section L.4.2.4 states "Factor 1, Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation and Commitment factor, will be evaluated based upon the Offeror’s proposal to the Volume V, Part A." Section L, Table 1.1 includes Subfactors 1 through 4 in Part C and Section M.1.2 lists Small Business Participation and Commitment as Subfactor 3 in Factor 1 Part C Acceptable/Unacceptable. Please confirm that that Volume V, Parts A through C are only required to be submitted in Volume V and evaluated in accordance with M.2.1.3, that no additional material other that Subfactors 1 and 2 should be provided in Volume II of the contractor's response, and update Table 1.1 and M.1.2 accordingly. | L.2.2 Organization / Number of Copies / Page Limits; |
L.4.2.4 Part C and Part D;
M.2.1 Factor 1: Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors;
M.2.1.3. Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation and Commitment;
| Attach 30 QA DRFP_12032020 Question #16 | Table 1.1 has been edited to remove the small business participation section from Volume II Section C, since it was already included in Volume V, part A. | Y | L.2.2 |
| 318 | Given the criticality of a Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) in the common defense and security of our nation and to allow bidders to provide a thorough and complete response, please consider allowing the Acceptable/Unacceptable SCRM submission to be a standalone document with unlimited page count and update Table 1.1 accordingly. | L.2.2. Organization / Number of Copies / Page Limits; |
L.4.2.4 Part C and Part D;
M.2.1 Factor 1: Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors;
| M.2.1.4. Subfactor 4: SCRM; | The Government has reviewed your question. The requested RFP modification will not be made. | |||
| 319 | Section M.2.1.1 Factor 1: Subfactor 1: Staffing and Transition Plan states "In order for this factor to be rated acceptable, the Offeror’s proposal shall include their planned approach to successfully coordinate Assumption of Responsibility (AOR) for handling 100% of the required Defense Enclave Service operations from the incumbent contractor(s) within 90 calendar days of performance start. The Government will evaluate the proposed Staffing Plan and Staffing Schedule to determine if the team structure proposed is feasible, presents low risk, and supports the following requirements:". Please clarify if the first sentence is associated with the Transition Plan (item e) and the second sentence is associated with the Staffing Approaches (items a-d). If not, can the government please clarify how these sentences relate to items a-e? | RFP Section M.2.1.1 | The Government has reviewed your question. The requested RFP modification will not be made. | |
| 320 | Section M.2.1.1 states "The Government will evaluate the proposed Staffing Plan and Staffing Schedule to determine if the team structure proposed is feasible, presents low risk, and supports the following requirements:". Please clarify the specific requirements for a Staffing Plan and Staffing Schedule. | RFP Section M.2.1.1 | Offerors are advised to propose their best approach to Staffing to meet the acquisition requirements. | |
| 321 | Section M.2.1.1 states "The Government will evaluate the proposed Staffing Plan and Staffing Schedule to determine if the team structure proposed is feasible, presents low risk, and supports the following requirements:". Please clarify if by "team structure" the government means the bidders' program organization structure. If not, please define what will satisfy the government's requirements for a "team structure". | RFP Section M.2.1.1 | By team structure, the Government means the team structure that will be used to support this contract. Offerors are advised to propose their best Staffing approach to meet the acquisition requirements. | |
| 322 | The DES and TO 0001 Data call spreadsheets have different information for DMA. There are sites listed in the TO 0001 SOO that are not in the TO 0001 Data Call spreadsheet and the TO 0001 DD-254 (DISA - Jacksonville, Augusta, Wahiawa, Annapolis Junction, St. Louis, Raven Rock, Ballston, Sterling, Arlington BKH, Warrenton, Carsham, Wiesbaden, Kelley Barracks; DMA - Naples). There are sites in the TO 0001 Data Call spreadsheet that are not in the TO 0001 SOO (DISA - Hagerstown; DTIC - San Diego; DPAA - Yongsan, Thailand; DMA - Washington, Guam, Tokyo, Darmstadt, Vilseck, Diego Garcia). The sites listed in the TO 0001 SOO are not aligned to the sites listed in the TO 0001 DD-254. Please reconcile the differences in site locations and user quantities between the TO 0001 SOO, the DES IDIQ Data Call spreadsheet, TO 0001 Data Call spreadsheet, and the TO 001 DD254. | Attach 9 TO 0001 SOO; |
Attach 15 SOO Appendix F - DES IDIQ DAFA Data Calls;
| Attach 21 SOO Appendix F - DES TO 0001 DAFA Data Calls; Attach 23 TO 0001 DD254 | Attach 11, 15, 17, 21 and 23 have been revised. | Y | Attach 11, 15, 17, 21 and 23 | |||
| 323 | The response to Q&A 115 states that migration includes the "need to re-image" endpoints onto the new IT domain and …" Item b. of Section 4. Attachment 9 TO 0001 SOO seems to contradict that assertion by stating that workstation imaging is part of the Sustainment Activities. Please confirm that initial imaging onto the DES DoDNet is performed during migration and update Attachment 9 accordingly. | Section M.2.2.2; Attach 9 TO 0001 SOO 12032020; Q&A 115 | Initial imaging is inherent in "deploy and configuration of equipment" migration activities. | |||
| 324 | Given that Section M.2.1.a has been changed to include all sustainment post-transition, please consider the removal of the words “and sustainment” from Section M.2.1.d “DoDNet Migration Staffing” so all sustainment can be addressed in Section M.2.1.a “Network Operations Staffing”. | |||||
| RFP M.2.1.1.d (DoDNet Migration Staffing) | Section M.2.1.1.d has been revised to remove "and sustainment". | Y | RFP M.2.1.1.d (DoDNet Migration Staffing) | |||
| 325 | In Attachment 8, CLIN Structure tab, the calculation of the 52.217-8 values is based on 50% of the Option Period 2 prices, but Option Period 2 is for two years. Please update the proposed pricing for the 52.217-8 extension to reflect a 6 month extension. | Attach+8+IDIQ+Labor+Rates+12102020+(v1)+(PROTECTED) | This was revised on 12/10/20 in RFP Amendment 1. | |||
| 326 | Section L.4.2.4 requires Part D to contain the contractor’s mission-essential contractor services plan in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7023 CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES (OCT 2010). Because this plan is typically incorporated into a Contracts volume and the plan should contain sufficient detail to appropriately ensure continuity to the warfighter and respond in the event the plan needs to be activated, please consider moving the Mission-essential contractor services plan from Part D BVTO submission and include in Volume I Contracts. | RFP L.4.2.4 | The Government has reviewed your question. The requested RFP modification will not be made. | |||
| 327 | In Attachment 9, the migration activities include "conduct successful pre-IOC pilot". Please provide what constitutes a successful IOC? | Attach 9 TO 0001 SOO 12032020 | Exit criteria for a successful pre-IOC pilot can vary per site/agency, but at minimum requires establishment and connectivity of domain services, identity management services, print services, and application testing. | |||
| 328 | RFP Paragraph 3 states "...DES will also support the legacy Operations and Sustainment requirements of Defense Agency and Field Activities (DAFA) mission partners as separate task orders." Section M.2.1.1. Subfactor 1: Staffing and Transition plan. In order for this factor to be rated acceptable, the Offeror’s proposal shall include their planned approach to successfully coordinate Assumption of Responsibility (AOR) for handling 100% of the required Defense Enclave Service operations from the incumbent contractor(s) within 90 calendar days of performance start. Please clarify the transition in and assumption of responsibility requirement (i.e., the requirement to only transition in-flight migration activities and support for those DAFAs that are in sustainment) and confirm that legacy operations and sustainment will be forthcoming in a future task order. | RFP Section M.2.1.1; Attach 20 SOO Appendix E - DES TO1 PWS template 120320; QA 168 | Confirmed; the requirement is to only transition ongoing migration and sustainment activities and the Government intends to release legacy support requirements in future task orders. | |||
| 329 | Can the Government supply Splunk with a justification as to why we are not on the approved software list and how we may be added in an amended update? | Reading Library 11: DISANet Authorized Software List NIPR | Please contact: disa.meade.ie.list.approved-products-certification-office@mail.mil | |||
| 330 | L.4.2.4 Part C states, "Offeror shall submit a detailed organization-wide SCRM plan as part of their proposal" but in Table 1.1, no additional pages are allotted to Volume I, Part C. Please confirm that the SCRM Plan can be submitted as an attachment outside of the 75-page limit. | RFP HC104720R0014 final; L.4.2.4 Part C, M.2.1.4 | The SCRM part is part of volume II, part C, consequently the 75 page limit applies. | N | ||
| 331 | Section 5 Scope of Attach 14 SOO Appendix E - DES IDIQ PWS Template 12012020 includes “VIP Tier”. The Table in Attach 31 SOO Appendix A-DES TO 001 Services Summary 120220 does not include this service but it is included in the bulleted list that follows the table. Please confirm that “VIP Tier” services are to be included in the scope of Task Order 0001. | Attach 31 SOO Appendix A-DES TO 001 Services Summary 120220; Table on page 1 | TO #0001 does not include VIP Tier Support; Attach 31 has been revised. | Y | Attach 31 | |
| 332 | L.2.2.2.2 states, "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 10 point Arial or Times New Roman font for all text included in a table. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the information is readable." | |||||
| Will the Government permit 8 point Arial and Times New Roman fonts in non-table charts, graphs, figures, headers, and footers as long as the text is legible and readable? | RFP HC104720R0014 final; L.2.2.2.2 | |||||
| The Government has reviewed your question. The requested RFP modification will not be made. | ||||||
| 333 | DARPA tab line 8 Chantilly NIPR users has an * after the 200 that is not totaling. Do we count that as 200 users and 200 Seats? | Attach 15 SOO Appendix F - DES IDIQ DAFA Data Calls - 09242020 | See revised Attach 15. | Y | Attach 15 | |
| 334 | DLA tab line 221 in the sum it states "Approx. 1700**" for SCIF users, but there is nothing that defines the ** and there is no count above it in the individual locations. Should we include 1700 SCIF users? | Attach 15 SOO Appendix F - DES IDIQ DAFA Data Calls - 09242020 | See revised Attach 15. | Y | Attach 15 | |
| 335 | DMDC tab line 13 has an asterisk in the SIPR user and SIPR Seat numbers …. What does it mean? | Attach 15 SOO Appendix F - DES IDIQ DAFA Data Calls - 09242020 | See revised Attach 15. | Y | Attach 15 | |
| 336 | In question 136 you stated "VIPs may be estimated at 5% of Agency Government personnel for proposal purposes." For TO1, please provide which locations contain VIPs, or how many locations contain VIPs. | Attach 30 QA DRFP_12032020 | TO #0001 does not include VIP Tier Support. | |||
| 337 | Would the Government please clarify if there is a Reference "l." in the reference section of the IDIQ PWS? | Attach 14 SOO Appendix E - DES IDIQ PWS Template 12012020 | There was not, Attach 14 has been revised to correct the error. | Y | Attach 14 | |
| 338 | Would the Government please clarify if there is a Reference "l." in the reference section of the TO1 PWS? | Attach 20 SOO Appendix E - DES TO1 PWS template 120320 | There is not, no revision is required. | |||
| 339 | Please provide list of sites at the IDIQ and TO1 levels, that require High Performing AQLs outlined in the AQL Chart. | RFP HC104720R0014 final; Section 8 Performance Metrics, page 14 | Added Reading Library 13, DISA High Performing Sites. High performing sites are sites which are supported with built in redundancies, while standard sites are sites which are at risk with single points of failures. See Reading library attachment 13. | Y | Reading Library 13, DISA High Performing Sites | |
| 340 | Will the government provide government-furnished space for network operations and security operation teams, and where will this space be located? | Attachment 31 SOO Appendix A DES TO1 001 services Summary 120220; Page 5, Network Operations Center (NOC)/ Security Operations Center (SOC)/Operations Center | This is determined at Task Order level. | |||
| 341 | There appears to be conflicting location information in 2 RFP documents: |
In Attach 9, there are 16 Locations (2 DMA & 14 DISA) in the Migration Status in T01 SOO that are not in the T01 DAFA Data calls.
In Attach 21, there are 9 Locations (7 DMA, 1 DTIC, & 1 DISA) in the T01 DAFA Data calls that are not in the Migration Status in the SOO. Would the Government please confirm which document should be used for scoping the TO1 efforts. If the Attachment 21 locations are in-scope, please provide the appropriate migration status for each. Attach 21 SOO Appendix F - DES TO 0001 DAFA Data Calls 10132020
| Attach 9 TO 0001 SOO 12032020 | Attach 21 has been revised. | Y | Attach 21 | |||
| 342 | The Total Evaluated Price provided under CLIN Structure Tab doesn't add-up. The SUM formula under Column D is missing Travel Costs for the Optional Periods. | |||||
| Attach_8_IDIQ_Labor_Rates_12102020_(v1)_(PROTECTED)_Amend 1 | As stated on row 1 of this tab, the information provided is for informational purposes only. However, the Government has corrected the formula errors found in this tab. | Y | Attach 8 | |||
| 343 | CLIN 9999 Surge - 40% total is hard coded number instead of taking 40% of the appropriate CLINs. Please revise the calculation in the latest Attach_8_IDIQ_Labor Rates_12102020_(v1)_(PROTECTED) excel file. | Attach_8_IDIQ_Labor_Rates_12102020_(v1)_(PROTECTED)_Amend 1 | As stated on row 1 of this tab, the information provided is for informational purposes only. However, the Government has corrected the formula errors found in this tab. | Y | Attach 8 | |
| 344 | There appears to be a discrepancy between the IDIQ and DAFA data call spreadsheets. Would the Government please confirm which volumes should be used for the response to T01? |
DMA Data Calls for T01 has 3050 NIPR/ 0 SIPR / 0 ADCON
| DMA Data Calls for the IDIQ has 1444 NIPR/100 SIPR / 4 ADCON | Attach 15 SOO Appendix F - DES IDIQ DAFA Data Calls - 09242020 | |||
| Attach 21 SOO Appendix F - DES TO 0001 DAFA Data Calls 10132020 | Attachments 15 and 21 have been revised. | Y | Attachments 15 and 21 revised | |
| 345 | Item J, under Scope states, "The provisioning and maintenance of the Government-procured devices are within the scope of the DES contract ." Would the Government please confirm that warranty uplifts and / or OEM maintenance (including access to firmware updates and patches) sufficient to meet the required AQLs will be provided to the DES contractor as GFP. If the Government is requiring the DES contractor to provide the warranty / OEM maintenance services, please specify where the Offerors should include these costs in the pricing spreadsheet and provide a comprehensive asset listing for the Offerors to use in estimating these services. | Attach 9 TO 0001 SOO 12032020; Constraints and Risks, Item J, page 4 | Warranty uplifts and / or OEM maintenance (including access to firmware updates and patches) sufficient to meet the required AQLs will be provided to the DES contractor as GFP. | |
| 346 | For OCONUS sites will the government provide minimal secure storage space on-site for advanced placement of Spares and parts | c.10 Government Furnished material and Equipment | Offerors are advised to incorporate secure storage requirements in their migration strategy proposals. | |
| 347 | RPF Section M2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Survey & Migration asks the offerors to provide an approach to executing site surveys, migrating multiple diverse sites with a specific number of end users within a contractor-defined timeframe; and to provide end user and workstation onboarding to transition a specific number of users over a 3 month period. |
RFP Section M.2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Staffing and Transition Plan asks offerors to provide an approach to successfully coordinate Assumption of Responsibility (AOR) for handling 100% of the required Defense Enclave Service operations from the incumbent contractor(s) within 90 calendar days of performance start.
| It is unclear if the Government requires that all survey, migration and onboarding efforts need to be completed within 90 calendar days of performance start for the contractor to demonstrate it can handle 100% of the required DES operations. Based on the durations provided for onboarding, it seems that the Government intends for the contractor to be able to demonstrate it's ability to assume any and all survey and migration work that may be planned or in progress at the time it attains AOR, and carry it to conclusion based on a prescribed schedule. | HC104720R0014, RFP section M.2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Survey & Migration, page 100 ; | |||
| Attach 09 T0001 SOO, Table 1. DES Integration (Pathfinder Agencies), page 3 | The Government intends for the contractor to be able to demonstrate it's ability to assume any and all survey and migration work that may be planned or in progress at the time it attains AOR, and carry it to conclusion based on a prescribed schedule. | |||
| 348 | Does the Government have any common assumptions regarding COVID-19 impacts on schedule, AQLs and costs/price? For example, does Government have an assumption regarding the length of time during Base Period of the IDIQ or TO1 (or beyond) that COVID-19 may be a factor potentially impacting these elements? Should offerers incorporate any assumptions regarding COVID-19 impacts for pricing and/or impacts to the schedule or delivery of services both CONUS and OCONUS. | Volume IV, Part A – Cost/Price Narrative and/or L.2.2.3 Pricing Information | There are no standard common assumptions by the Government. Offerors are advised to propose their best commercial approach to meet the acquisition requirements. | |
| 349 | We respectfully request that the Government release Questions and Answers as soon as they become available (i.e. in batches) and to not wait until all questions have been answered before the Government releases them to Industry. All Offerors will greatly benefit from having Questions and Answers as soon as possible to help craft the most advantageous proposals in support of the DISA DES opportunity. | General | We are releasing them as soon as we possibly can. | |
| 350 | RPF Section M2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Survey & Migration asks the offerors to provide an approach to executing site surveys, migrating multiple diverse sites with a specific number of end users within a contractor-defined timeframe; and to provide end user and workstation onboarding to transition a specific number of users over a 3 month period. |
RFP Section M.2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Staffing and Transition Plan asks offerors to provide an approach to successfully coordinate Assumption of Responsibility (AOR) for handling 100% of the required Defense Enclave Service operations from the incumbent contractor(s) within 90 calendar days of performance start.
Would the Government please confirm the phases and activities leading to Sustainment, as there appears to be conflict in multiple sections of the RFP and SOOs. Our read of the documents is Phase-In / Transition encompasses those activities needed to stand up a Task Order and perform AOR for the in-scope work of the TO as-is/where-is – this is a 90 day period starting at TO award. The next phase is Planning to survey and develop the detailed plans to migrate the in-scope sites for the TO – the timeline for this effort starts immediately post-transition and the duration is TBD based on the number of locations / users for a specific TO. Next is Migration to execute the tasks required to implement the new DoDNet architecture at each of the in-scope sites – the timeline for this effort begins in accordance with the planning deliverables and is TBD based on the number of locations / users for a specific TO. Lastly, is Sustainment which commences upon migration of each site. There are multiple parallel activities occurring along this timeline, one of which is the on Onboarding of end-users to the new DoDNet/DES architecture – the Onboarding process will run in parallel with the Migration efforts as sites are migrated.
Given the complexity and wide variety of planning and migration activities size and scope, requiring these activities to be completed in a 90 day window – which can be inferred from the RFP and Attachments – would inject significant risk for end-user disruption and migration failures into the DES program. Please validate the timelines of each phase ( Transition, Planning, Survey and Migration, Onboarding) and when each should occur.
| RPF Section M2.2.2 Subfactor 2: | Survey and migration will take place at different times, as the agencies are brought onboard. All survey work is not expected in the first 90 days of the contract. | ||||
| 351 | We respectfully request that the Government accept substitution of years of experience for education requirements. | PWS 11.2 | The Government has reviewed your question. The requested RFP modification will not be made. | ||
| 352 | RFP Section 4, item F states that network equipment is not in scope of the DES contract. However, library 12 is a product list that contains network equipment. Are the bidders required to design the network architecture based on what is listed in the reading library 12? | Offerors are advised to propose their best commercial approach to meet the acquisition requirements. Items not in the APL would have to be tested and certified to be in the APL. | |||
| 353 | Is it necessary for a vendor to be added to reading library 12 for DISA to purchase that equipment for the DES network? | Items not in the APL would have to be tested and certified to ensure they are compatible and secure on DoDNet. | |||
| 354 | How does a vendor get equipment added to the reading library 12 product list? | See Question #329 | |||
| 355 | Section L.5.2, paragraph 5 states that "Questionnaires shall be sent back to the Offeror for inclusion in the proposal." Typically, once the customer POC completes the PPQ, it is only sent to the Government, without the Offeror seeing the results. Will the Government confirm that the completed PPQs are to be submitted with the proposal in Volume III and update Section L appropriately to exempt from page count. If not, please confirm that completed PPQs should be emailed to disa.meade.PLD.mbx.defense-enclave-services@mail.mil. | RFP L.5.2 Part A - A - Past Performance Information (Past Performance Questionnaires) | The sentence: "Questionnaires shall be sent back to the Offeror for inclusion in the proposal" has been deleted. Per section L.5.1: "Questionnaires shall be sent directly via email to the Contract Specialists, Veronica Peters, Trang Tran, Chelsea Reese, and the Contracting Officer, Adelis M. Rodriguez at disa.meade.PLD.mbx.defense-enclave-services@mail.mil no later than the proposal due time and date from the customer filling out the form." | Y | L.5.2 |
| 356 | Reference DRFP QA #9 - Change was made from "may" to "will" in Section L.4.2.4 but was not also changed in Section M.1.2, paragraph 5. Please change "may" to "will" in M.1.2, paragraph 2, page 96. | Attach 30 QA DRFP_12032020 |
Section L.4.2.4
| Section M.1.2 | The Government has reviewed your question. The requested RFP modification will not be made. | N | |
| 357 | Please clarify government expectations for the requirement in Attachment 14: "Fifty (50) percent total staffing must be complete within two (2) weeks of the start of the PoP and one hundred (100) percent within thirty (30) business days," given the government's objective in M.2.1.1.e of "minimizing the extent of duplicate staff between the incumbent and the Offeror". | Attachment 14, page 13 of 14, 13.e. Transitioning |
| M.2.1.1.e | This is meant to provide a transition period with the incumbent personnel for knowledge transfer. | |||||
| 358 | Attachment 23, DD254 T0001 block 3a date is missing; should the date be the same as the Attachment 1 IDIQ DD254 block 3a which shows a date of 20200311? | Attachment 23 DD254 T0001 | Attachment 23 has been revised. | Y | Attach 23 | |
| 359 | Is the requirement for having Blocks 6, 7 and 8 of the DD254 with the appropriate information for each subcontractor required for the new Attachment 23 T0001 DD254? Or is the requirement to only capture the IDIQ DD254 for Prime and Sub in submission? | Attachment 23 DD254 T0001 | Each subcontractor and the prime should have one separate DD254 completed. | |||
| 360 | In Part C, EEO Pre-Award Information section, please confirm if teaming partners intended to be awarded more than $10 million is just for T0001 or if the amount is over the life of the contract. | L.3.3 EEO Pre-Award Information | This applies to the whole IDIQ, over the life of the contract not just task order 1. | N | ||
| 361 | Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) is not included in the IDIQ Services Summary in Appendix 29 or in the TO 001 Service Summary Services or Definitions/Responsibilities for DES in Appendix 31. There is a PKE/PKI Status Report identified in the IDIQ and TO 001 SOO. Please confirm that that PKI is excluded as part of the DES scope and update deliverables as necessary or appropriate. | Attachment 20 |
Attachment 29
| Attachment 31 | PKI is part of Identity Management. | |||||
| 362 | Please confirm that the Transition Plan that is part of Volume II Factor 2: Subfactor 1 is, in fact, the same Transition Plan that is required on page 5 of Attachment 9 Task Order #001 SOO. | Attachment 9 - TO #001 SOO 6. Transition Part A | That is incorrect. Transition is part of Factor 1, subfactor 1: Staffing and Transition plan | N | ||
| 363 | The Authorizing Official was removed from the Services Summary in Attachment 29, but is still listed in Attachments 14 and 31. Please confirm if the AO is in scope or not. | Attachment 29: Services Summary | See revised Attach 29. | Y | Attach 29 | |
| 364 | Attachment 29 includes component items that are not included in Attachment 20 (e.g., VIP Tier and Service Desk [Tiers 0-3]). Please confirm that these component items are intentionally omitted from Attachment 20. | Attach 20 SOO Appendix E | ||||
| Attach 29 SOO Appendix A | See response to question #400. | |||||
| 365 | Attachment 31, page 5 provides services Definitions/Responsibilities for DES, Network Access Services, Virtual Desktop Infrastructure. Is this service just the network component of a VDI service or is it also inclusive of the DVDS Architecture in Attachment 18? | Attachment 31 | VDI includes DVDS Architecture in Attachment 18. | |||
| 366 | Attachment 31 Services Summary lists NIPRNet/SIPRNet as service under the Network Access Performance Area. However, no definition for the NIPRNet/SIPRNet service is provided in the Services Definition/Responsibilities for DES in Attachment 31. Please provide service definition/responsibility. | Attachment 31 | See revised Attach 31. | y | Attach 31 | |
| 367 | Section M.2.2.4.a, bullet one states "Offeror's proposed projected Return on Investment (ROI) for DISA to leverage proposed best practices and toolsets" with subsequent bullets directing how to describe impact based on x,y,z criteria. In Attachment 30, question 13, the government confirmed that offerors are to propose an Operation support system. As hardware and software procurements are out of scope for this contract, please provide direction on how offerors should calculate any 3rd party cost of materials or services. | RFP Section M.2.2.4.a | Offerors are advised to propose their best commercial approach to meet the acquisition requirements. | |||
| 368 | In M.2.2.4.a the government states it "will evaluate the offeror's proposed toolset for innovations and emerging technology for DES to determine if it meets or exceeds the Government's requirements for the following." It is unclear if the government is stating it will evaluate the proposed toolset to do innovations and emerging technology, or if the government is going to assess the proposed toolset against the criteria of innovation and emerging technology. Please update this criteria to read as "...will evaluate the offeror's proposed toolset for a) innovations and b) emerging technology for DES to determine if it meets or exceeds the Government's requirements" and update Section M accordingly. | RFP Section M.2.2.4.a | Revised as suggested. | Y | RFP Section M.2.2.4.a | |
| 369 | The government provided the approved NIPR software list. Please provide SIPR List or confirm that the NIPR list applies to SIPR. | Reading Library 11 - DISANet authorized software list NIPR | The NIPR list applies to SIPR. | Y | Reading Library 11 - DISANet authorized software list NIPR-SIPR |
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 .