AMD0003Question_and_Answers_-_HC108419R0013.pdf

Amendment 0001

Number Question Answer

On Page 3 of 66, CLIN 0001 & 1001 includes the following:

“**This clin could be ordered in quantities greater than 1. If the mission partner has an IV range greater than $1,200,000 and less than $50,000,000 multiple quantities will be ordered to meet their installed base.**” Did the Government intend for that statement to be associated with CLIN 0006 and not

CLIN 0001?

This was an error. This wording will/has been removed from CLIN 0001 & 1001 as illustrated in Amendment 0001 ‐ SF30.

In validating Cisco Commercial Part Numbers, is it possible that the Government intended for the part number to be

“OPTIONAL CON-NCFT-1MIB-P”?

Yes, the correct Part number shall be OPTIONAL CON‐NCFT‐1MIB‐P.

Amendment 0001 ‐ SF30 has been updated.

Amendment 0002

We wanted to seek some clarification around what is required for the Past Performance section of the proposal We were not able to access theCaution‐ https://www.ppirssrng.csd.disa.mil/ < Caution‐ https://www.ppirssrng.csd.disa.mil/ > site. Please clarify how we should address our past performance for this requirement.

RFP updated to remove DFARs 252.213‐7000. FAR Clause 52.212‐2 was updated to read, "by the Contracting Officer" highlighted in red. Past Performance is not an evaluation factor for award that would require an offeror to submit further information.

Amendment 0003

On Page 62 of 66, in the second paragraph, there is a sentence that reads: “The DoD enrollee will provide changes and updates to inventory to the Contractor as necessary” Will the Government provide the parameters of “as necessary” or consider rephrasing to “ The DoD enrollee will provide changes and updates to inventory to the Contractor.”? RFP updated to remove, "as necessary".

On Page 63 of 66, Section 10. Security: Does the government anticipate issuing a DD 254 in support of this contract and if so, at what facility clearance level?

If an offeror brings to the Governments attention a need for a DD254 or proposes support that will require a DD254 the Government could issue a DD254 in support of the request at the level requested.

The JELA should have a clause (e.g., an H clause) with instructions for agencies and contracting officials that intend to leverage the JELA in subsequent source selection on how to recognize and evaluate the price (or the costs incurred) properly. With that in mind, can DISA include a clause that captures the following principle: When conducting an evaluation of a proposal that intends to provide goods or services pursuant to this JELA, the head of an agency shall ensure that the cost or price of such goods or services under the JELA is included in the evaluation of the proposal. The clause should provide the methodology for calculating the “costs incurred.”

HC108419R0013's requirement is for brand name Cisco Smart Net and SWSS. DITCO is not in a position to dictate how other Agencies evaluate future or unknown requirements.

The manufacturer that is the subject of the proposed JELA is not the only manufacturer in the DoD install base. When will DISA enter into negotiations for JELAs for the other manufacturers that are in DoD’s install base?

Any manufacturer looking to discuss current or future requirements with DISA should contact the JELA program team at disa.meade.bd.mbx.disa‐jela‐ team@mail.mil.

In the interest of fair and open competition, will DISA accept a direct bid from the OEM.

Per the Justification for other than full and open competition, "The recommendation is to execute a firm‐fixed‐price single award, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract to Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) or one of its certified gold partners, using open market procedures." The method of evaluation to determine the lowest price technically acceptable offeror is described in the RFP.