Responses_to_vendor_questions_amendment_0001.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 46 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HC108419R0001
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
This draft solicitation is for the Mobility Enterprise Services - Classified (MES-C) contract to provide classified mobile device capability to the Department of Defense. Key details include that the Defense Information Systems Agency will award an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract to support the DoD Mobility Classified Program for secret and top secret capabilities. The contract scope includes enterprise mobility management, classified network gateways, tier III support services, commercial mobile devices, and identity management. The period of performance consists of a one-year base period and four, one-year option periods. Industry feedback is encouraged by October 26, 2018, with anticipated award in the third quarter of fiscal year 2019.
Responses to vendor questions for amendment 0001
View the file
Other files
Show all 38
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
Instructions
| Q&A INSTRUCTIONS: The purpose of these specific instructions is to expedite the process of answering questions. Please do not change the format of this document. |
| Complete the spreadsheet tab below named "Q&A" with all questions, comments, and recommendations about the RFP. Examples provided in the spreadsheet. **Please delete the examples before submitting your questions. |
COLUMN A: Complete the "Page" column. This is the page number from the RFP located in the upper right hand corner of the page. Do not include the total page number. Enter only the page number where the topic begins.
COLUMN B: Complete the "Section/Paragraph" column with the applicable section and paragraph number (if applicable) of the RFP. For example: B2, C, or L5.1.2. For a section and paragraph number reference do not place a dot between the letter and the first number. Additional subparagraph references should be separated with a dot regardless of the format in the RFP, for example, L5.1.2.a. Do not including any other extraneous identifiers or other information other then instructed here. If the reference is to a CLIN, Clause, Appendix, or Attachment etc. the entry goes in the next column. At a minimum you will always insert at least the Section letter A through J in this column.
COLUMN C: Complete the "CLIN/Clause/Other" column. Insert the CLIN, Clause, Provision, Appendix, or Attachment number. For example: CLIN 0001, 52.217-8, Appendix A, or Attachment L3. Insert the section letter only in the Column B. This column will be completed only when there is not a more precise RFP reference number. NOTES: CLINs are in Section B. Most sections contain clauses so ensure you reference the correct section.
COLUMN D: Complete the Questions/Comments/Recommendations column. Start the question by referencing the topic. This may help the sort process. For example: Minimum Qualifications Checklist or Performance Area 10. Then insert the question or comment.
Issues must be submitted to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist listed in L2.1.1 (edit as necessary).
Q&A
| RFP Page | RFP Section/ Paragraph | CLIN/ Clause/Appendix/Attachment/Other | Questions/Comments/Recommendations | Answers | RFP Revision |
| 70 | L7.1.3 Past Performance Submittal Information | Section L7.1.3 States: "The offeror shall submit information in accordance with Section L, Attachment L2 of this solicitation, Past Performance Information Sheet, on a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of three (3) recent DoD contracts that the prime offeror or the prime offeror’s joint venture partners considers most appropriate in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed efforts." |
| Will the Government please confirm that Past Performance References can be submitted from the Prime's teaming partners? | Past Performance references can be from the Prime's Teaming Partner, but at least one effort must be performed as the prime. | Yes, updated L7.1.3 to add Past Performance submittals can be from the Prime's teaming partner, but at least one submittal must be performed as the prime. | |
| 70 | L7.1.3 Past Performance Submittal Information | Section L7.1.3 States: "The offeror shall submit information in accordance with Section L, Attachment L2 of this solicitation, Past Performance Information Sheet, on a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of three (3) recent DoD contracts that the prime offeror or the prime offeror’s joint venture partners considers most appropriate in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed efforts." |
| Will the Government please confirm that Past Performance References can be from similar size, scope, and complexity supporting classified mobility solutions for other federal customers? | Past Performance references can be from federal customers. | Yes, updated Section L7.1.3 to include federal contracts. |
| 64, 70 | L2.2.1 Proposal Organization |
L7.1.3 Past Performance Submittal Information Section L7.1.3 States: "The offeror shall submit information in accordance with Section L, Attachment L2 of this solicitation, Past Performance Information Sheet, on a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of three (3) recent DoD contracts that the prime offeror or the prime offeror’s joint venture partners considers most appropriate in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed efforts." However, Section L2.2.1 States: "6 pages each submittal (Summary Page not included in page count) Limit 4 submittals."
| Will the Government please confirm that Past Performance References are limited to a maximum of 3 submittals? | Yes, Past Performance references are limited to a maximum of 3 submittals. | Yes, L2.2.1 Proposal Organization, Table 1, Volume 5 updated to change submittals from 4 to 3. |
| 62, 76 | L2.2 General Proposal Guidance |
M1.0 a) Basis for Contract Award
Section L2.2 States: "The offeror shall address all requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS)." However, M1.0 a) states: "Offerors are to propose to the technical factors and subfactors included in this section ONLY and NOT required to propose to the entire PWS."
| Can the Government please confirm that Offerors are ONLY required to respond to the factors, subfactors and the PWS elements listed in Sections L and M versus responding to the entire PWS? | The offerors are to propose to the technical factors and subfactors ONLY and NOT required to propose to the entire Performance Work Statement (PWS). | Yes, revised Section L2.2 a). Replaced "The offeror shall address all requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS)." with "The offerors are to propose to the technical factors and subfactors ONLY and NOT required to propose to the entire Performance Work Statement (PWS)." | |
| 65 | L2.2.2 Page Limitations | Section L2.2.2 States: "The Government reserves the right not to consider for award any proposal that does not adhere to the administrative requirements of this solicitation. Exception: Title/cover pages, table of contents, glossaries, resumes, and blank pages shall not be counted and no information on those pages will be evaluated." |
| Can the Government please clarify that based on the exception items listed in this paragraph that resumes are acceptable but not required and will not be evaluated? | Resumes of proposed key personnel are required, but will not be evaluated under the evaluation factors in Section M of the RFP. | Yes, L2.2.1 Proposal Organization Table 1, Volume VII Contract Documentation and L9.1 has been updated to include sample resumes of key personnel. | |
| 79 | M2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Transition Plan | Section M2.1.2 States: "...Process to ensure effective transition from the incumbent contractor to the awardee." |
| Industry understands that this IDIQ is a new requirement with no incumbent today. If the reference to "incumbent contractor" above is accurate can the Government please provide the name of the incumbent(s) and the current contract number(s)? | This effort is a new requirement that consolidates several current contracts. | No | |
| 79 | M2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Transition Plan | Section M2.1.2 States: "...Process to ensure effective transition from the incumbent contractor to the awardee." |
| If the reference to "incumbent contractor" above is accurate can the Government please confirm that the current contractor will provide transition out services to DISA while the new contractor transitions in? | Yes, the Contractor will provide transition out services while the new contractor transitions in. | No | ||||
| 79 | M2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Gateway Soluction Delivery | In consideration of the fact that the Government will be using an automated software for portions of their proposal evaluations, can the Government please correct the title of Section M2.1.3 from Subfactor 3: Gateway Soluction Delivery to Subfactor 3: Gateway Solution Delivery? | Yes, correct title is Gateway Solution Delivery | Yes, M2.1.3 updated with correct title | ||
| 16 | Task Order 0001 PWS 6.3.4.2 Infrastructure Refresh | PWS Section 6.3.4.2 of the Task Order 0001 PWS States: "The Contractor will design, deliver, and then integrate an end-to-end solution to upgrade the current classified mobility service offering. The end-to-end solution will include but not be limited to a VPN Solution, MDM, inner encryption components (e.g. VPN and TLS) and fully configured and hardened end user devices." |
| Can the Government confirm that end user devices will not be procured and provided by the awarded contractor? If it is the Government's intent that the awarded contractor procure and provide devices can the Government provide offerors with the quantity and type of devices required, as well as the data plans to be used with the devices. Further, please update Attachment L5_MESC Task Order 0001 Pricing Template to allow offerors to price the inclusion of these devices? | No, end user devices will not be procured and provided by the contractor. | Yes, update PWS to state "and current and future DMCC devices. | |
| 17, 18 | 6.3.7 Research Development Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) |
Task Order 0001 PWS 6.3.8 Lab Support PWS Section 6.3.8 States: "The lab must be staffed and ready to provide quick turnaround on ad-hoc and planned test events, and must be able to expand or contract the lab based on the Mobility Program Office’s request. The labs must be located at Government facilities."
| Will the Government please confirm that the labs discussed in this section are located at DISA HQ and that the awarded contractor is only required to provide staffing support for those environments? | Yes, labs are located at DISA HQ. | No | ||
| 33 | Task Order 0001 PWS 12.1 Facility Security Clearance | PWS Section 12.1 States: "...the company must have a final Top Secret Facility Clearance from the Defense Security Service Facility Clearance Branch." |
Will the Government please indicate where in an offeror's proposal shall their TS/FCL documentation be included? The MPS office confirms via the DSS Industrial Security Facility Database. The FCL is verified by the DD254 info with the info filled out in block 6.
| No | ||
| RFP Pages 18&19, PWS Pages 33&39 | 12.3 Security Clearance and Information Technology (IT) Level | Task Order 0001 PWS 12.2 Security Clearance and Information Technology (IT) Level |
Task Order 0001 PWS 14 Other Pertinent Information or Special Considerations PWS Section 12.2 States: "Contractor personnel must possess the interim or final security clearance and interim or final IT-level eligibility...when performance starts."
Section 2.3 of the RFP States: "Individuals supporting PWS Tasks / Subtasks that require(s) a final Top Secret security clearance and a final IT-I (privileged level systems access) will, immediately upon hire, require Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access eligibility adjudicated by the Defense Intelligence Agency or other federal adjudications facility to perform their duties."
PWS Section 14 States: "All of the positions on this task order require a minimum of final Secret security clearance before performance starts."
| Will the Government please confirm that interim clearances are acceptable at performance start? | Yes, interim clearances are acceptable at performance start. | Yes, updated applicapble sections to reflect interim clearance is acceptable. | |
| RFP Pages 18&19, PWS Pages 33&39 | 12.3 Security Clearance and Information Technology (IT) Level | Task Order 0001 PWS 12.2 Security Clearance and Information Technology (IT) Level |
Task Order 0001 PWS 14 Other Pertinent Information or Special Considerations PWS Section 12.2 States: "Contractor personnel must possess the interim or final security clearance and interim or final IT-level eligibility...when performance starts."
Section 2.3 of the RFP States: "Individuals supporting PWS Tasks / Subtasks that require(s) a final Top Secret security clearance and a final IT-I (privileged level systems access) will, immediately upon hire, require Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access eligibility adjudicated by the Defense Intelligence Agency or other federal adjudications facility to perform their duties."
PWS Section 14 States: "All of the positions on this task order require a minimum of final Secret security clearance before performance starts."
| Will the Government confirm that they will sponsor an SSBI for personnel requiring IT-I and currently possess at least a final secret clearance? | Yes, the Government will sponsor an SSBI for personnel requiring IT-I and currently possess at least a final secret clearance. | No | |
| 64, 65 | L2.2.1 Proposal Organization | The Proposal Organization table in Section L2.2.1 requires the Subcontracting Past Performance Compliance Template to be submitted with both Volume IV and Volume VII. |
| Can the Government please clarify which volume the Subcontracting Past Performance Compliance Templates should be submitted within? | Subcontracting Past Performance Compliance Templates should be submitteed with Volume V and removed from Volume VII. | Yes, updated L.2.2.1 Volume IV, V, VII, L7.1 and L9.1. | |
| 64, 67, 68 | L2.2.1 Proposal Organization | The Proposal Organization table in Section L2.2.1 requires Volume II to be organized in the following order: Table of Contents, Technical/Management Approach (Factor 1), Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. However, Section L4.0 requires Volume II to be organized in the following order: (1) Table of Contents, (2) List of Table and Drawings, (3) Glossary, (4) Technical/Management Factor, (5) Architecture, Diagrams, etc. |
Can the Government please clarify what the required order of sections should be for Volume II Technical/Management Approach (Factor 1)? The required order is: Table of Contents, Technical/Management Approach (Factor 1) (to include all subfactors), Architecture, Diagrams, etc. and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms
| Yes, L2.2.1 and Volume II have been corrected. | ||
| 67, 68 | L2.2.1 Proposal Organization | Section L4.0 requires Volume II to include Architecture, Diagrams, etc. |
| Considering the already stringent page limitations for Volume II can the Government please confirm that the Architecture Diagrams are excluded from the overall 25-page limit? | Volume II page limit increased to 40 pages. Architecutre, Diagrams should be included within the technical approach. | Yes, Updated L2.2.1 Proposal Organization, Table 1 Volume II and L4.0. | |
| 79 | M2.1.1 Subfactor 1: CSfC Trusted Integrator | Section M2.1.1 requires that for offerors to receive a rating of Pass for CSfC they must be listed as a Trusted Integrator on the NSA CSfC Trusted Integrators List website at the time of initial proposal submission. |
| Can offerors assume that the Government will simply survey the CSfC website for compliance against this requirement? If not, can the Government clarify what offeror's should include in their narrative for this section? | The Government will verify CSfC compliance through the CSfC website or CSfC Program Office. | No | |
| 79 | M2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Transition Plan | Section M2.1.1 States: "...Provide a transition plan that details the seamless support of both the DMCC-S and DMCC-TS Programs as defined in the PWS section." PWS 6.2.4 defines the Transition Plan that will be part of a contract deliverable and includes extensive requirements such as "Transition performance measurement: 1) goals; 2) acceptance criteria; 3) metrics; 4) evaluation process; 5) frequency," and "IMS with major Government review milestones and critical path." |
| Can the Government please confirm that offerors are not required to provide a full Draft Transition Plan in accordance with all of the requirements listed in PWS Section 6.2.4? If offerors are required to provide a full Draft Transition Plan will the Government please increase the page limit for Volume II from 25 pages to 35 pages? | Yes, a full draft transition plan is to be provided IAW PWS 6.2.4. | Yes, Volume II updated to 35 page limit. |
| 65, 72 | L2.2.1 Proposal Organization |
L9.0. Volume VII –Contract Documentation Section L2.2.1 lists Volume VII as "Additional Requirements," while Section L9.0 lists it as "Contract Documentation."
| In consideration of the fact that the Government will use automated software during source selection evaluation can the Government please clarify the correct naming convention for Volume VII? | Yes, L2.2.1 Proposal Organization, Table 1, Volume VII updated to Contract Documentation | Yes | |
| 3 thru 7 | Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices | CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002 lists PWS Sections 6.3 Engineering Support, 6.4 Mobility Capability Integration, 6.6 Logistics and Asset Management as Cost Reimbursable ODCs. |
| Can the Government please confirm that these are the correct PWS tasks and should be priced under the Government's $500K per year plug number? | The CLIN structure in the RFP is for the base IDIQ. Offerors are not proposing ODCs at the base IDIQ level but just at the Task Order level. | Yes, Removed X002 CLINS for ODCs from the CLIN structure. ODCs are only to be proposed at the Task Order level. | |||
| 3 thru 7 | Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices | For pricing purposes can the Government please provide the estimated start date for Task Order 0001? | The estimated start date of Task Order 001 is at contract award (3rd quarter FY19) | No | |
| 12 | 4.1.2 Cyber Security | Does DISA currently use a Host Based System Security (HBSS) tools for DMCC Devices? If so, what is the tool? | No HBSS on DMCC devices | No | |
| 13 | 5.1.1 MACP Compliant Infrastructure | Can the Government please confirm that because MobileIron, the current Mobile Device Management (MDM) software, is not 100% NIAP/CSfC approved that it cannot be considered as part of an offeror's solution for this contract? | Where applicable in the design, in reference to the CSfC Component List categories, all products utilized shall be active on the CSfC components list at time of proposal submission. | No | |
| 13 | 5.1.2 Virtual Private Network (VPN) | Section 5.1.2 States: "Once the VPN tunnel is established, the mobile device’s traffic is routed to an internal firewall that will permit only Transport Layer Security (TLS) and inner IPSec VPN tunnel traffic per CSfC requirements." |
| Based on this description is DISA open to a dual IPSec solution? | Yes, per Section 5.1.2. | No | |||
| 14 | 6.1.3 Service Desk | Is their any Tier III Service correlation between DMUC and DMCC? | No | No | |
| 16 | 9.1.4 Mobile Data Management | The title of this section is "Mobile Data Management." Was it the Government's intention to title this section "Mobile Device Management? Are their any requirements for Telecom Expense Management (TEM) solutions or support? | Yes, corrected PWS 9.1.4 to read Mobile Device Management. No TEM requirement | Yes, 9.1.4 updated to Mobile Device Management. | |
| 17 | 10.1.4 Virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) | Will VDI only include DISA backend solutions such as DEE, other UC, etc. or will other COCOMs, Coalition Partner enterprise services be included as well? | Services to be provided are unknown at this time | No | |
| 65 | L2.2.3. Page Size and Format (b) | The RFP states, "b) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 X 17 inches in size." |
| Can the Government please confirm that 11 x 17 tables, charts, graphs, and figures count as 1 page? | Yes | No | ||
| 24 of Task Order PWS | Task Order 0001 PWS 6.5.1 Tier III Support | The Task Order PWS states, "The Contractor will use the Government designated ticketing and other system tools to provide Tier III level support." |
| Will the Government please confirm that the ticketing system is Remedy and provide which version? | Remedy, version 7.1.00 patch 009. | No | ||
| Bidder's Library | DMCC Gateway Tools | The DMCC Gateway Tools document states that the gateway administration and monitoring tool suite is proprietary. "1. Proprietary - Apriva - Apriva MESA Command and Control Suite (gateway administration and monitoring)." |
| Does the Government have software licenses that will convey during the transition to allow the new contractor to utilize/operate this software? | Yes | No | ||||
| 16 | 9.1.4 Mobile Data Management | Are their any requirements for the contractor to procure, manage, and bill or invoice for Data, Text Messaging and/or Voice Plans? | No. PWS corrected to read Mobile Device Management. | Yes, 9.1.4 updated to Mobile Device Management. | ||
| Bidder's Library | DMCC Gateway Tools | The DMCC Gateway Tools document states "OCONUS Support: The Mobility PMO will engineer and execute an OCONUS Gateway that will provide regional support and an additional redundancy/COOP site." |
| Will the contractor need to provide full time OCONUS support and if so, to what location(s)? | No | No | |||
| Bidder's Library | DMCC Gateway Tools | The DMCC Gateway Tools document describes tasks as "Completed," "Current," and "New." In what state of completion are the "Current" tasks? Would the Government please publish a WBS for each "Current" task and percent complete so the bidding contractor can estimate the remaining level of effort? | No, we can't provide that level of detail. However at time of award all information will be provided to the contractor. | ||
| No | |||||
| 13 | 5.1 Performance Area 3 – Gateway Solution: | 5.1 Performance Area 3 – Gateway Solution States: "The Contractor shall assist in designing and developing MES-C technical documentation (ex. technical diagrams, Operational Views, |
System Views, and other DoDAF diagrams)."
| What are the current Model Based Systems Engineering tools (such as Cameo) that the Government is using and what DoDAF 2.0 views are being produced? | Magicdraw is the tool | Yes, added to bidders | |
| 13 | 5.1 Performance Area 3 – Gateway Solution: | 5.1 Performance Area 3 – Gateway Solution states "The Contractor shall assist in designing and developing MES-C technical documentation (ex. technical diagrams, Operational Views, |
System Views, and other DoDAF diagrams)."
| What SysML repository is currently being used for the Government DoDAF data? | Approved DoDAF views are stored in DEPS/Sharepoint in PDF format. | No | ||||
| 9 | 1.2 Background | Business Support System | What applications/tools comprise the MES-C Business Support System? | DISA Storefront | Yes , IDIQ PWS | |
| 9 | 1.2 Background | Mobile OSS | What applications/tools comprise the MES-C Operational Support System? | Reference DMCC Gateway Tool attachment in the Bidders Library | No | |
| 28 | Section E - Inspection and Acceptance | Section E States: "The contractor shall develop, implement and maintain a quality control plan. This plan shall include inspection, validation, evaluation, corrective action and procedures necessary to effect quality control of all performance and products provided under the contract. The plan shall allow inspection and evaluation by the Government, and shall be applicable to all subcontractors and members of the contractor’s team, as appropriate." |
| Will the Government please confirm that the Quality Control Plan is a contract deliverable and not an artifact that must be submitted with offerors' proposals? If the Quality Control Plan is required as part of proposal submission will the Government please updates Sections L and M to include the requirements for the plan, as well as what volume it should be placed in and what page count is permitted for the plan? | Yes, Quality Control Plan is a delverable and not required with proposal. | Yes, PWS updated in 6.1.1 and delivery table. | ||||
| 6 | 6.2.1 Transition Planning and Execution of Operational Support Services and Equipment | When providing remote management support at gateway locations to administer Gateways, will the contractor work in coordination with the Government only, or will there be an existing contractor presently providing administration support of the Gateways that the new contractor will have to work with? Will the Government provide a complete list of GFE that makes up the Gateways to include Make, Model Numbers for hardware, and version numbers for software? | Yes, awardee will work in coordination with exisitng contractors through the Government and contractor. A complete GFE list will be proivded at award. | No | ||
| 9 | 6.3.1 Systems Engineering Support | Will the Government provide GFI on DMCC Engineering Efforts after September 2018 that the contractor will be taking over? | Reference "DMCC Engineering Efforts" attachment in the Bidders Library | No | ||
| 23 | 6.5.1 Tier III Support | Will the Government provide GFI on the SLA and overarching process for the interface to Tier III? | Contractor is the Tier III and will interface with Remedy for Tier II tickets as well as develop how their Tier III will be accessable. | No | ||
| 14 | 6.3.4 Architecture Development | Will the Government provide GFI on the existing COOP architectures and associated SLAs for COOP? | No. DMCC-S drawing in bidder Libray already shows In-Line Encryptors (INE01/INE02) and routing to COOP router, which connects via circuit to other site. DMCC-TS does not have COOP at this time. | No | ||
| 70 | L7.1.3 Past Performance Submittal Information | Based on attachment L7, will the Government confirm that Prime Offerors' teaming partners are permitted to submit a past performance as one of the 3 required submissions? | Yes, reference response to question #1, line item 3. | Yes | ||
| 18 | Section C, 11.3 | The section states that “DISA has allocated TBD on-site workspaces that will be dedicated to provide this support at the Government site.” Given the information specified in “Attachment L4_MESC Pricing Template”, this information does not seem to be required at the IDIQ level. However, it is necessary at the Task Order 0001 level and is not provided in the Task Order PWS Section 9 or in the “Attachment L5_MESC Task Order 0001 Pricing Template”. Request the Government specify the number of on-site workspaces they are making available for Task Order 0001 performance. | The Government has planned to have 15 onsite contractors. | Yes, IDIQ and TO PWS updated and DD254 were updated to show the onsite personnel at 15. | ||
| 19 | Section C, 12.3 | Request the Government replace the “TBD” placeholders in the Security Clearance and Information Technology Level table with the required content. | This has been updated in the PWS. | Yes | ||
| 19 | Section C, 12.3 | Request the Government replace the “TBD” placeholders in this section with the required content. | This has been updated in the PWS. | Yes | ||
| 28 | Section E | This section states “the contractor shall develop, implement and maintain a quality control plan”, but a quality control plan is not a required deliverable. Request the Government define whether the contractor quality control plan is a formal deliverable. | ||||
| 35 | Sec H (Key Pers) | States that Key Personnel "To be determined by Gov on review of technical/Management Proposals". Neither Sec M2.1. (Tech/Mgmt factor), nor PWS 14.g provide instructions to submit key personnel resumes. Will the Gov verify that named key personnel resumes are to be submitted and evaluated against M2.1.1 | Resumes of proposed key personnel are required, but will not be evaluated under the evaluation factors in Section M of the RFP. | Yes, L2.2.1 Proposal Organization Table 1, Volume VII Contract Documentation and L9.1 has been updated to include sample resumes of key personnel. | ||
| 64 | L2.2 | L2.2 states:“The offeror shall address all requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS)”, but L4 and M2 imply that only CSfC Trusted Integrator (MES-C ID/IQ PWS 2.1.1), Transition Plan (Task Order PWS 6.2.4), and Gateway Solution Delivery (Task Order PWS 6.2.3) will be evaluated as part of the Tech/Management Approach. Request the Government confirm that only these three sections will be evaluated versus the entire PWS. | The offerors are to propose to the technical factors and subfactors ONLY and NOT required to propose to the entire Performance Work Statement (PWS). | Yes, revised Section L2.2 a). Replaced "The offeror shall address all requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS)." with "The offerors are to propose to the technical factors and subfactors ONLY and NOT required to propose to the entire Performance Work Statement (PWS)." | ||
| 64 | L2.2 | Recommend the Government require and evaluate Basis of Estimates, which provide the basis, rationale and estimating methodology, and historical database used to derive proposed labor estimates for proposed approach and associated effort in order to demonstrate how the offeror intends to “address all requirements as stated in the PWS” consistent with HC1028-18-R-0024. | A Management Plan has been added. | Yes, reference L2.2 and M2.0 | ||
| 64 | Section L.2.2.1, Table 1 | Table 1 indicates the Cover Page has a page limit of 5 pages. Based upon the subsequent paragraphs that describe Volume I (L3.0 and L3.1), should this be one page for the Cover Page and 5 pages for the Executive Summary narrative? | Updated Table 1 for the Narrative Summary of the Executive Summary is 5 pages. | Yes, updated L2.2.1, Table 1 Volume I and L3.1 | ||
| 64 | Section L.2.2.1, Table 1 | The “Offeror’s Past Performance Information Sheets” row indicates that “summary page not included in the page count.” Request the Government clarify that this summary page is for all PPIS submittals or a summary of each individual PPIS submittal. | Provide a summary page for each individual PPIS submittal | No | ||
| 64 & 65 | L2.2.1, Table 1 | Table 1 states Vol. IV(Small Business Participation) is a separate volume and that Vol. VII(Additional Requirements) also states we include the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Subcontracting Past Performance Compliance Template. Will the government please clarify in which volume to include these 2 documents? | Corrected Volume IV to include Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Small Business Participation Plan and DISA Subcontracting Review Checklist and updated Volume VII and L9.1 | Yes, updated L2.2.2, Table 1 and L9.1. | ||
| 65 | Section L.2.2.3.b | Please confirm that an 11x17 page counts as a single page | Yes | No | ||
| 65 | Section L.2.2.3.b | Section L2.2.3 states “For all tables, charts, graphs and figures included in the proposal, the text shall be no smaller than 10-point Arial or Times New Roman font.” Section L4.2.1 provides organization instructions for Vol II with Part 5 containing “Architecture, Diagrams, etc.” We understand that Technical/Management Factor graphics can be no smaller than 10-point font. However, the architecture drawings in Part 5 will be very detailed and involved such that 10-point font may unnecessarily constraining. Accordingly, request the Government allow detailed engineering diagrams in Part 5 to use font smaller than 10-point as long as they are legible and readable. | Agree | Yes, updated L2.2.3 b | ||
| 66 | L2.5 | States "Each volume, except the Cost/Price Volume IV, shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume." However, L2.2.1 Table 1 states the Cost/Price Volume is Vol VI and the Small Business Participation is Vol. IV. This discrepancy is similiarly refelected in L2.6 . Will the government please clarify which volume is for Cost/Price | Corrected L2.5 and L2.6 to reference Volume VI | Yes, corrected L2.5 and L2.6 | ||
| 68 | Section L.6 | A Small Business participation minimum objective of 33% is quite significant. Given the Government performed MES-C market research and determined that two or more small businesses were not capable of performing the MES-C requirements, it is uncertain how the Government has determined that one third of the work can be performed by small businesses. Request the Government reconsider the size of the small business participation minimum objective that is more consistent with market | Changed mimimum objective of 33% to 25% | Yes, updated L.6 | ||
| 68 & 69 | L6.0 | A Small Business participation minimum objective of 33% Total Acquisition Value including SDB 5%, WOSB 5%, SDVOSB 3%, HUBZone 3% is quite significant. The stated goals are the negotiated Department of Defense agency’s minimum subcontracting goals based on total dollars to be subcontracted. Given the Government performed MES-C market research and determined that two or more small businesses were not capable of performing the MES-C requirements, it is uncertain how the Government has determined that one third of the work can be performed by small businesses. Request the Government reconsider the size of the small business participation minimum objective that is more consistent with the market. | Changed mimimum objective of 33% to 25% | Yes, updated L.6 | ||
| 69 | L6.0 | Section L9.2.1. Small Business Subcontracting states the contract awardee has the “life of the contract” to make a “good faith effort” to ensure that subcontracted dollars will go to small businesses. Table L6 asks for a "Timeframe" in the SB participation plan table. As this contract will be an IDIQ and future task orders to be let are not known at this time will the government confirm that the response under “Timeframe” should state “over the life of the contract”. | The offeror should specify the timeframe of when they intend to utilize a small business as it may or may not be for the life of the contract. | No | ||
| 70 | L7.1.3 | Due to the criticality and heavy reliance on the CSfC Mobile Access Capability Package (MACP) in Evaluation Subfactor 3, it is recommended that the Government require each past performance reference cite aspects of CSfC integration and at least one (1) of the references cite use of the MACP. | No | No | ||
| 78 | Section M2.1 Table M2.1 | The combined technical/risk ratings indicate that the Government will assess the “risk of unsuccessful performance”, yet nowhere does the RFP require the offeror to propose: a) where they have previously successfully implemented an end to end MACP solution nor how they will meet the Key Personnel requirements defined in Task Order 0001 PWS Section 14.g. Accordingly, suggest the Government emphasize additional importance in evaluating your future contractor's ability to conduct full, end-to-end MACP deployments and that the Government require offeror’s to provide resumes for all key personnel such that the “risk of unsuccessful performance” can be properly assessed. | Resumes of proposed key personnel are required, but will not be evaluated under the evaluation factors in Section M of the RFP. | Yes, L2.2.1 Proposal Organization Table 1, Volume VII Contract Documentation and L9.1 has been updated to include sample resumes of key personnel. | ||
| M2.4.2 | Please confirm that (1) Contract Management, (2) Systems Engineering Support, and (3) Operational Support are the relevancy assessment factors for Past Performance and that they should be incorporated into the Past Performance Information Reference Sheet (Attachment L2). The current Attachment L2 does not have a section to address those three elements specifically. | |||||
| Yes, L7.1.3 states c. Relevant past performance means providing evidence demonstrating experience with past contracts in similar size and scope, as described in Sections M2.4.2. M2.4.2 identifes the 3 areas, (1) Contract Management, (2) Systems Engineering Support, and (3) Operational Support | No | |||||
| 9 | Task Order 0001 PWS Section 6.2.4 | This section states “At a minimum, the transition plan shall provide … Deliverables schedule that will need to be employed to meet the cost, performance and schedule requirements throughout the PWS execution.” Request the Government clarify the intent of this statement and whether it is to include only those deliverables required within the Transition period or if it is to be inclusive of all deliverables. | Provide the deliverables required within the Transition period. | Yes, updated 6.2.4 | ||
| 30-31 | Task Order 0001 PWS Section 11 | The numbering within the Delivery Schedule table does not align to the TO PWS Areas 6.3.4 through 6.3.8) | Renumbered | Yes, renumbered section 11 | ||
| 33-34 | Task Order 0001 PWS 12.2 | Please clarify that interim Secret and interim TS clearances are acceptable (as relevant to the task in table 12.2) at performance start per Sec 12.2, as there are multiple conflicting statements elsewhere in the RFP requirements which state final clearances may be required. (ref conflicts in TO001 PWS sec 12.2 and 14.g; Section C 12.3 | Interim is required | Yes | ||
| 38 | TO 01 PWS 14.g; L6 (LCAT descriptions) | Please confirm the Project Manager-Senior position requires a PMP within 120 days of contract award, consistent with other LCATS (e.g. NW Eng-Senior, Info Sec-Senior, Voice Eng-Senior) with professional certifications requirements that are due within 120days of award | PMP is required at conract award | No | ||
| Attachments L4, L5 | Labor Category numbering differs between the Labor Rate Build and Labor Rate Table tabs in Attachment L4. Will the Government please clarify which LCAT numbering is correct for purposes of entering pricing data into Attachment L5? | Correction made to Attachment 4 | Yes | |||
| n/a | n/a | n/a | Can you describe how you will evaluate the products that make up the software solution for MES C? | Reference Task Order PWS 6.2.3 and RFP M2.1.3. | Yes, Task Order PWS 6.2.3 and M2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Future Gateway Solution Delivery updated | |
| n/a | n/a | n/a | What will be the decision criteria for the award of the product/solution for MES C? | Reference the RFP | No | |
| n/a | n/a | n/a | What process will you use to acquire user licenses to support the chosen solution for MES C? | FAR Part 51 will be enacted on the contract | No | |
| 16 | 6.3.4.2 | Section J_Attachment_M.1_Task_Order_PWS | In order to provide the most efficient solution to the Government, please provide detailed requirements for the servers outlined in this section; specifically the number of processors/cores, amount of RAM, number/capacity of disk drives, number of network connections. | No per Information Security System Manager (ISSM). | No | |
| 16 | 6.3.4.2 | Section J_Attachment_M.1_Task_Order_PWS | Please confirm that the offeror's network switching solutions being proposed for the refresh needs to be on the UC-APL at time of submission of the final solicitation response. | Yes, Section 6.2.3 Future Gateway Solution Delivery and M2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Gateway Soluction Delivery (Reference Task Order PWS 6.2.3) will be updated to reference the use of UC/APL equipment as outlined in 6.3.4 Architecture Development. | Yes | |
| Section J Attachment C.3 GFP | Please provide specific workloads are utilizing the "iSCSI ReadyNAS 2U, 36TB Enterprise HDD Arrays" listed in the attachment. For example, Block and NAS. | Various workloads, specific workloads cannot be released due to classification concerns. | No | |||
| Section J Attachment C.3 GFP | Please confirm that a mandatory replication requirement is for the "iSCSI ReadyNAS 2U, 36TB Enterprise HDD Arrays" listed in the attachment. This will be necessary in order to support the COOP as mentioned. | iSCSI ReadyNAS 2U, 36TB Enterprise HDD Arrays" is for off-machine Network Storage of log data, per enclave in the "CSfC DMCC-S Network Topology and Detailed Network Diagram v4.2a OV1 located in the bidders library. The off-machine storage is per the requirements of the CSfC MACP | No | |||
| Section J Attachment C.3 GFP | Please confirm the Government has a COOP requirement for the "Servers" listed in the attachment. | Yes, the Government has the COOP requirement. | No | |||
| Section J Attachment C.3 GFP | Please define the purpose of the "300 GB Hard drive" listed in the attachment | This is for data retainment. | No | |||
| Section J Attachment C.3 GFP | Please define the purpose of the "Memory, 8GB" listed in the attachment. | This is for additional memory performance. | No | |||
| N/A | General | Please clarify the Government's expectation of how an offeror is to run devices thru the MDF Protection Profile to meet the DISA Mobility standards when the Protection Profile is dependent on the Operating System? | Work with the OEM and NIAP to support NIAP certification for the mobile OS in question. Remotely possible to get a separate Non-NIAP NSA risk evaluation | No | ||
| N/A | General | Microsoft has identified issues in the MDF PP that are not conducive to a Windows OS. What process does the Government recommend for vendors to get a Windows device certified? | Work with the OEM and NIAP to support NIAP certification for the mobile OS in question. Remotely possible to get a separate Non-NIAP NSA risk evaluation | No | ||
| N/A | General | DISA Mobility has stated they are looking at trying to break out the differences between the MDF PP and the OS PP so that Vendors only have to test against the deltas. When does the Government anticipate that OEM's will able to certify the MDF PP separately from the OS PP? | Feasibility will be determined by NIAP. | No | ||
| N/A | General | According to CSfC Program Office, customers can submit using the preferred device not yet listed as a deviation request when they submit their registration package to the CSfC office, where they are typically getting approved by the Technical Advisory Council. Will DISA accept these deviations for the solutions? | No. The mobile device is too critical and it's deviation will result in a chain of deviations in the Mobility PMO CSfC Registration package such as FIPS-140 device encryption verification. | No | ||
| N/A | General | Is there a reason why the Government requires a mobile device running a Windows Operating System to undergo additional certification when it already meets the same specifications and is running the same exact OS as all other Windows OS devices currently on the DISA Network? | The mobile device must meet the CSfC MACP and Component List requirements. This is because the mobile device is operating classified material outside a Government controlled facility on a commercial carrier network whereas the Windows laptops are running on a closed classified network inside controlled government spaces. | No | ||
| N/A | General | As the current process stands today, the Government is making the requirement for offerors to get windows certified devices extremely difficult |
| Is the Government's intent to provide a brand name justification for an other than windows device? | Recommend discuss with NIAP and CSfC Program Office | No | ||
| N/A | General | There appears to be a perceived lack of urgency between agencies as it relates to the current certification process as far as breaking out the OS PP and the MDF PP which is causing limited competition and therefor a lack of offering to Department of Defense customers. |
| Please provide a timeframe on when CSfc certification for MDF only will be available and what the procedures will be. | Feasibility will be determined by NIAP. | No | ||||
| N/A | General | Is the Government open to considering on-premise and/or air-gapped tools, instead of cloud based? | Cloud is not a requirement in the MES-C PWS. Other tools and their deployment environment will be considered as long as their operation is not overly onerous to implement such as massive (greater than a CD ROM) and continuous (more than daily) file transfers across air-gaps. In certain instances, tunneling of network protocols (e.g. NTP) to Gray enclave may be authorized | No | ||
| N/A | Section J_Attachment_M.1_Task_Order_PWS | Does the Government plan to retain failed hard drives or any other components that contain sensitive, confidential, and/or irreplaceable data after they have been removed from the system? | Government follows dictated procedures for de-classifying hardware for disposition. | No | ||
| N/A | Section J_Attachment_M.1_Task_Order_PWS | Please provide a list of the locations, both CONUS and OCONUS. | List to be provided after award. Primary on-site location is at DISA HQ or at contractor facility. | No | ||
| 23 | 6.5 Operational Support | Section J_Attachment_M.1_Task_Order_PWS | Please define expected service level for repairs; for example, Next Business Day. | |||
| Repairs are out of scope of this PWS. | No | |||||
| 32 | 12. Security Requirements | Section J_Attachment_M.1_Task_Order_PWS | Will vendor's break/fix technicians need a secret security clearance for this effort? If yes, will this apply to all locations? | Yes for contractor Tier III support per PWS Section 6.5 "to perform onsite trouble-shooting". The on-site NETOPS contractor will be responsible for OEM equipment break/fix technicians but will coordinate with the Tier III team as needed. | No | |
| 32 | 12. Security Requirements | Section J_Attachment_M.1_Task_Order_PWS | Are there any special requirements for gaining access to the facility for break/fix purposes? If so what are they? | Yes. Data Centers have a defined process with form submittal via NETOPS contractor to Data Center Security Office. Non-cleared personnel will need to be escorted. | No | |
| 32 | 12. Security Requirements | Section J_Attachment_M.1_Task_Order_PWS | Will vendor’s break/fix employees and/or subcontractors have access to classified information? If so what level? | Yes, reference Section 12 of the PWS. | No | |
| 32 | 12. Security Requirements | Section J_Attachment_M.1_Task_Order_PWS | What security clearance or proof of citizenship will vendor's break/fix employees and/or subcontractors need to gain access and repair hardware equipment? | DoD Interim or Final Security Clearance. Secret for DMCC-S and Top Secret for DMCC-TS. Reference Section 12 of the PWS. | No | |
| 32 | 12. Security Requirements | Section J_Attachment_M.1_Task_Order_PWS | Will vendor's break/fix employees and/or subcontractors have access to classified information? If so what level? | Yes, reference Section 12 of the PWS. | No | |
| 23 | 6.5.1 Tier III Support | Section J_Attachment_M.1_Task_Order_PWS | Weekly Activity Report: Can the Government please provide the details that are being requested in the Weekly Activity Reports? | Weekly Activity Reports were removed from the contract | Yes, 6.5.1 of TO PWS | |
| 23 | 6.5.1 Tier III Support | Section J_Attachment_M.1_Task_Order_PWS | Weekly Activity Report: Can the Government please provide the details that are being requested in the Troubleshooting Analysis Final Reports? | Weekly Activity Reports were removed from the contract | Yes, 6.5.1 of TO PWS | |
| 65 and 70 | L.2.2.1 and L7.1.3 | N/A | L2.2.1 Table 1 states "Limit 4 submittals" for Vol V, however L7.1.3 states "maximum of three (3)" references. Will the Government clarify the maximum number of references that may be submitted. | Yes, Past Performance references are limited to a maximum of 3 submittals. | Yes, L2.2.1 Proposal Organization, Table 1, Volume 5 updated to change submittals from 4 to 3. | |
| 70 | L7.1.3 | N/A | L7.1.3 states that past performance references should be from the "prime offeror or the prime offeror’s joint venture partners". The Government has also included Attachment L7 for subcontractor past performance. Is it the Government's intent to only allow past performance submissions from the prime contractor? Or, is the Government allowing significant subcontractors to submit past performance in response Volume V? | Reference response to question #1 | Reference response to question #1 | |
| 54 | Section J, Attachment M.1 | PWS 6.3.4 | PWS 6.3.4 references DoDAF views that will be required under the task, however those DoDAF views are not listed as a deliverable for PWS 6.3.4. Will the Government update the deliverable list so that those items can be priced? | Yes | Yes, updated 6.3.4 | |
| 74 | Section L, Attachment L6 | Section L, Attachment L6 | Will the Government consider allowing advanced degrees (e.g. BS/BA, MS/MA, PhD) as substition for years of experience requirements? | No | No | |
| 74 | Section L, Attachment L6 | Section L, Attachment L6 | Will the Government consider prior military service experience as a substitution for degree requireements? | Yes, only if the prior military service is directly relevant and adequate to the position involved. | Yes, update to PWS 14 h. | |
| 74 | Section L, Attachment L6 | Section L, Attachment L6 | Will the Government clarify what DoD 8570 IAT/IAM level certification is required for the Information Security - Senior (Key Personnel) IDIQ LCAT, as that certification is required within 120 of contract/task order award? If specific certication requirements are required at the task order level, would the Government remove the requirement for the IDIQ LCATs and instead require task order certification requirements? | All work/certifications are performed/required at the TO level. IAT Level I personnel make the environment less vulnerable by correcting flaws and implementing IAT controls in the hardware or software installed within their operational systems. (Typical Level 1 System Admin/monitor technician) |
IAT Level II personnel provide network environment (NE) and advanced level computing environment support. They pay special attention to intrusion detection, finding and fixing unprotected vulnerabilities, and ensuring that remote access points are well secured. These positions focus on threats and vulnerabilities and improve the security of systems. (Monitoring and correcting any vulnerability. (Lead Engineer/Security monitor technician) IAT Level III personnel will focus on the enclave environment and support, monitor, test, and troubleshoot hardware and software IA problems pertaining to the computing environment, NE, and enclave environments. (Senior Engineer)
| No | ||||
| 74 | Section L, Attachment L6 | Section L, Attachment L6 | Will the Government clarify which "Switching and Routing" certification(s) are acceptable for the Network Engineer - Senior (Key Personnel) LCAT, as that certification is required within 120 of contract/task order award? If specific certication requirements are required at the task order level, would the Government remove the requirement for the IDIQ LCATs and instead require task order certification requirements? | All work/certifications are performed/required at the TO level. The present deployed gateway is Cisco so the Cisco CCDP and CCNP certifications will be required. Future certifications are dependent upon equipment deployed for gateway upgrade/new deployment. |
Yes, the Labor Cat Descriptions were updated.
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 .