Attachment 9 RFP Questions and Answers Template_Amend 0004.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 83 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Cloud Based Internet Isolation Service
- Solicitation number
- HC108426R0005
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
This is a Request for Proposal (RFP) Questions and Answers template documenting 320 questions submitted by potential offerors regarding solicitation HC108426R0005 for Cloud Based Internet Isolation (CBII) Managed Services, with corresponding government responses and implementation status.
The requirement is for a Menlo Security, Inc. Cloud Browser product provided as a managed service to support the Department of War's remote browsing isolation solution. The contract encompasses renewal of existing subscription licenses, procurement of new licenses for up to 3.2 million Department of War users (with surge capacity to 3.4 million), and incorporation of Menlo Security's Highly Evasive Adaptive Threat (HEAT) Shield with AI/Machine Learning capabilities. The contract is structured as Firm-Fixed-Price with monthly invoicing based on 3.2 million users, with HEAT Shield required in the base year and optional in option years. Performance is anticipated to begin April 15, 2026, for a base year plus four one-year option periods. Key evaluation factors include technical capability (Subfactor 1), Tier I/II/III service desk support (Subfactor 2), cybersecurity and patching management (Subfactor 3), and engineering/mobility support (Subfactor 4), evaluated on a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable basis. The offeror must be an authorized Menlo Security reseller, possess CMMC Level 2 (Self) certification at award with commitment to achieve Level 2 (C3PAO) by option year one, hold Final Secret facility clearance, and provide virtual instructor-led training with quarterly refresh cycles. Proposal submissions consist of Volume I (2-page executive summary), Volume II (36-slide oral presentation in PowerPoint or PDF, 20MB maximum file size), Volume III (price narrative), and Volume IV (contract documentation including SCRM plan and Small Business Subcontracting Plan). The proposal due date was extended to March 30, 2026, at 12:00 PM CST following four amendments addressing pricing structure clarifications, user count definitions, and removal of usage-based pricing provisions in favor of fixed monthly pricing.
View the file
Other files
Show all 30
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. |
| Blue text is provided as sample language and should be deleted by contractor before submission. |
COLUMN B: Complete the "Page" column. This is the page number from the contract. Do not include the total page number.
COLUMN C: Complete the "Section/Paragraph" column with the applicable section and paragraph number (if applicable) of the contract. Do not include 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.
COLUMN D: 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 3.
COLUMN E: Complete the Questions/Comments/Recommendations column. Start the question by referencing the topic. This may help the sorting process. For example: Minimum Qualifications Checklist or Performance Area 10. Then insert the question or comment.
Q&A
| RFP No.: HC108426R0005 | |||||||
| No. | RFP Page | RFP Section/ Paragraph | CLIN/ Clause/ Appendix/ Attachment/ Other | Questions/Comments/Recommendations | Government Response | RFP Amendment Required? | |
| 1 | 8-10 | 6.2 Cybersecurity | Attachment 1, PWS | Are the requirements listed under "Cybersecurity:", starting on page 8 and ending on page 10, expected to be fullfilled by a managed service provider using only Menlo Security or will additional OEM integrations be acceptable in the proposal to meet these capabilities. | The technical solution for CBII is the MSCB; however, the MSP is not prohibited from subcontracting integrator work. | No | |
| 2 | 3 | SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET | CLIN 0001 | "Contractor is to invoice monthly in arrears based on actual usage." Can the Government please clarify how the invoicing should be done on usage basis in an enterprise environment. We recommend an enterprise- wide license invoiced on annual basis. This will be the most cost-effective and beneficial option for the Government. | Usage-based pricing removed. The managed service Contractor shall propose an enterprise user license agreement (EULA) subscription based pricing, and corresponding licensing model for 3.2M DoW users. FFP Payments/Invoicing will be monthly, but not based on usage. | Yes, updated RFP, PWS and Attachment 3, CLIN Pricing Worksheet. | |
| 3 | 37 | Due Date | Considering the short turnaround time between the Q&A period and the proposal due date, can the Government please extend the proposal due date by two weeks to allow offerors to provide well-detailed slides with all required information? | RFP due date to be extended | Yes | ||
| 4 | 39 | (vii) Proposal Organization | Can the Government please allow offerors to include a two-page cover letter in the Executive Summary volume? | Yes. | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 (b)(12)(vii)(A) Volume I – Cover Page and Executive Summary. | ||
| 5 | 39 | Table 1 | Is there a minimum font requiring for Volume I? please specify the type and minimum size of the font. | 12-point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font. | Yes, ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1((b)(12)(iv), Administrative Requirements | ||
| 6 | 39 | Table 1 | We are assuming that the cover page and Master Table of Content do not count towards the 2-page limit for Volume I. Please confirm. | Correct. | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1((b)(12)(iv), Administrative Requirements and (vii) Proposal Organization | ||
| 7 | 39 | Table 1 | Do cover and closing slides count toward the slides count limit? | No | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a), Oral Proposals to add, "This limitation does not include a cover slide or an agenda/summary slide." | ||
| 8 | 39 | Table 1 | Do company profiles, organizational charts, key personnel bios, resumes, count toward page limits? | No | No | ||
| 9 | 39 | Table 1 | Volume II slides: Does the Title Page or a slide with presenters' introduction count towards the 36 slides? | No | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a), Oral Proposals to add, "This limitation does not include a cover slide or an agenda/summary slide." | ||
| 10 | 39 | Table 1 | Government has specified font size 14 for slides. Can you please specify the font type also. | Yes, Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font. | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a), Oral Proposals to add, "Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font" | ||
| 11 | 39 | Table 1 | Volume III Price Narrative: Can you please specify the font type and the minimum font size. | Yes, 12-point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font. | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 (b)(12)(vii)(C) Volume III - Price to add, "The document must be in a 12-point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font." | ||
| 12 | 39 | Table 1 | Volume IV : SCRM Plans, Small Business | ||||
| Subcontracting Plan: Is there a page limit for these plans? If so, please specify the font type and the minimum font size. | No page limit, updated font to 12-point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New | Yes, ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1((b)(12)(iv), Administrative Requirements | |||||
| 13 | 40 | (B) Volume II – Technical/Management Approach | As slides typically include images and may result in larger file sizes, can the Government please increase the file size limit from 2MB to 10MB? | The file size of each document shall not exceed 20MB. | Yes, ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 (b)(12)(vi) Electronic Offers and (vii)(B) Volume II - Technical/Management Approach | ||
| 14 | 41 | Volume III Price | How should Fixed Price Payment Plan be included? Is this another Spreadsheet in addition to the CLIN Pricing Worksheet? | Removed requirement for Fixed Price Payment Plan | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 (b)(12)(vii)(C) Volume III - Price to remove requiremnt for Fixed Price Payment Plan | ||
| 15 | 41 | Volume III Price | How is the Payment Plan different from the payment plan implied in the CLIN Pricing Worksheet? | Removed requirement for Fixed Price Payment Plan | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 (b)(12)(vii)(C) Volume III - Price to remove requiremnt for Fixed Price Payment Plan | ||
| 16 | 43 | Small Business Subcontracting Plan | Are there subcontracting plan goals for this solicitation? Please specify subcontracting percentage goals for each small business category. | There are no goals to be provided. | No | ||
| 17 | 43 | Small Business Participation Plan | Is there a requirement to include the Small Business Participation Plan in addition to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan? | No requirement to include a Smalll Business Participation Plan | Yes, removed reference to Small Business Partiiaption Plan in #7, in ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 (b)(12)(vii)(D) Volume IV - Contract Documentation. | ||
| 18 | 43 | Small Business Participation Plan | What is the required Small Business participation percentage for this procurement? | No Small Business Participation Plan required | Yes, removed reference to Small Business Partiiaption Plan in #7, in ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 (b)(12)(vii)(D) Volume IV - Contract Documentation. | ||
| 19 | 43 | Small Business Participation Plan | Is the offeror required to meet percentage goals for each individual small business category (e.g., SB, WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB, VOSB), or is compliance measured as an aggregate small business percentage across categories? | There are no goals to be provided. | No | ||
| 20 | 43 | Small Business Participation Plan | Are small business participation goals evaluated as pass/fail, scored, or as part of price realism analysis? | No Small Business Participation Plan required | Yes, removed reference to Small Business Partiiaption Plan in #7, in ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 (b)(12)(vii)(D) Volume IV - Contract Documentation. | ||
| 21 | 44 | Basis of Award | Recommend that the Basis of Award be changed from the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA ) to Best Value using trade offs. This is a complex program and a Best Value using trade offs for the evaluation criteria is more suitable for this award. | The evalaution method will not be changed. | No | ||
| 22 | 46 | Subfactor 2 | "Integrate with DISA ticketing systems" Please specify the interface and protocol for integration of the vendor ticketing system with the DISA ticketing system. | DISA uses ITSM+ for tracking service desk tickets. | No | ||
| 23 | 48 | Oral Proposals (c) | Can the Government please specify how many lowest-priced proposals will be invited for the oral presentation? | No. per the RFP, The Government intends to schedule oral presentations with only the lowest priced offeror or a group of lower priced offerors. The government also reserves the right to cancel scheduled oral presentations if it can award to the technically acceptable lowest priced offeror without conducting further oral presentations. | No | ||
| 24 | 1,2 | 3. Background | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | Is this acquisition intended as brand name (Menlo MSCB) only, or are technically equivalent solutions acceptable? | Only brand-name Menlo Securitiy, Inc. (MSCB) is acceptable. | No | |
| 25 | 3 | 3. Background | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | Does the MSP contractor need to secure DISA's Risk Management Executive accreditation? | Yes | No | |
| 26 | 3 | 4. Objectives | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | What is the current active user count and expected peak concurrent sessions supporting up to 3.4M users? | 3M+ total users; specific peak usage is Government sensitive information, however, assume at least 1M users at one time, perhaps even 1.5M | No | |
| 27 | 3 | 4. Objectives | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | Does the MSP contractor need to be FedRAMP+ Level 2 ? | No, however, MSCB has appropriate FedRAMP+ accredidation | No | |
| 28 | 5 | 6.1.5 Subtask 5 | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | Does the MSP contractor need to be on Microsoft's GCC in order to use DISA's SharePoint. | Awarded vendor will be issued GFP laptops that will be able to access Microsoft Sharepoint. | No | |
| 29 | 5 | 6.2 Task 2 | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | Does the cloud based environment need to be provided by MSCB's infrastructure? | Yes | No | |
| 30 | 14 | 6.2.1 Subtask 1 | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | Is pricing expected to be fixed per user annually, tiered usage-based, or minimum commitment with overage model? | Pricing is expected to be fixed price per month and to invoiced monthly based on 3.2M DoW users. | Yes, updated RFP, PWS and Attachment 3, CLIN Pricing Worksheet. | |
| 31 | 14 | 6.2.1 Subtask 1 | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | Is it acceptable to provide an enterprise user license agreement (EULA) subscription based pricing on annual basis? The pricing depends on the term, the longer the term, lower the cost. | The Government is requesting the Managed Services CLIN x001 to be billed monthly in arrears based on 3.2M DoW users. | Yes, updated RFP, PWS and Attachment 3, CLIN Pricing Worksheet. | |
| 32 | 15 | 6.2.2 Subtask 2 | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | PWS Section 6.2.2 is "Highly Evasive Adaptive Threat (HEAT) Shield Enablement ". But the evaluation criteria on page 45 of the RFP states "Implement and manage the Data Loss Prevention (DLP) capability" and references PWS 6.2.2. Please remove this inconsistency. | Corrected Subfactor 1.3. to reference PWS 6.2. | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a)b(1)(a) Subfactor 1. | |
| 33 | 19-20 | 6.5 Task 5 | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | What is the current ATO status and expiration date for the CBII environment? | CBII OTA expires April 14, 2026 | No | |
| 34 | 20 | 6.5 Task 5 | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | Please provide a definition of "White Glove" as it pertains to this program and related services. | Highly professional, prompt, and very responsive to DoW organizations using CBII and ensures their technical issues are fully-resolved in a timely manner. | No | |
| 35 | 20-21 | 6.5 Task 5 | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | What is the required migration timeline and phasing strategy across Combatant Commands? | N/A. COCOMs have already migrated to CBII | No | |
| 36 | 22 | 6.7 Task 7 | Attachment 1 CBII PWS | "The Contractor shall provide the full range of engineering support necessary to incorporate new/future technologies into the CBII service baseline after initial deployment and must have expertise in both traditional IT infrastructure and cloud computing." This is an undefined scope of effort. How this can be incorporated in the LPTA proposal. Would the Government please specify the scope of this effort. | The awarded MSP/integrator will provide engineering support to address the following CBII engineering areas, which are essential to the contract: systems engineering, architecture and system design engineering, network engineering, configuration management, test engineering, cybersecurity engineering, mobility engineering, and cloud computing. | No | |
| 37 | Summary Tab | Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet | Should the "(CUI) Summary" Tab be before the "(CUI) Base Year" Tab? | Yes. Summary tab on the CLIN Pricing Worksheet has been moved before the Base Year tab. | Yes. Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet has been updated. | ||
| 38 | Summary Tab | Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet | Option Period 1, Cell F16 ='(CUI) Base Year'!M21. It should be ='(CUI) OY1'!L21 | Yes. Cell F16 on the Summary tab of the CLIN Pricing Worksheet has been updated. | Yes. Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet has been updated. | ||
| 39 | Summary Tab | Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet | Option Period 2, Cell G16 ='(CUI) Base Year'!N21. It should be ='(CUI) OY2'!L21 | Yes. Cell G16 on the Summary tab of the CLIN Pricing Worksheet has been updated. | Yes. Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet has been updated. | ||
| 40 | Summary Tab | Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet | Option Period 3, Cell H16 ='(CUI) Base Year'!N21. It should be ='(CUI) OY3'!L21 | Yes. Cell H16 on the Summary tab of the CLIN Pricing Worksheet has been updated. | Yes. Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet has been updated. | ||
| 41 | Summary Tab | Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet | Option Period 4, Cell I16 ='(CUI) Base Year'!P21. It should be ='(CUI) OY4'!L21 | Yes. Cell I16 on the Summary tab of the CLIN Pricing Worksheet has been updated. | Yes. Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet has been updated. | ||
| 42 | NA | Attachment 6 Non-Disclosure Agreement | Are we supposed to submit Non-Disclosure Agreements for all employees that will work on the program? Should Non-Disclosure Agreements be submitted with the Contract Volume? | Per PWS 13.c., Initial NDAs shall be signed within one week of contract award. They do not have to be submitted with the proposal. | Yes, removed reference to NDAs in Addendum, ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 | ||
| 43 | NA | Attachment 6 Non-Disclosure Agreement | As all personnel are not yet identified and are not required at the time of proposal submission, can the Government please allow offerors to submit NDAs for personnel after contract award? | Per PWS 13.c., Initial NDAs shall be signed within one week of contract award. They do not have to be submitted with the proposal. | Yes, removed reference to NDAs in Addendum, ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 | ||
| 44 | NA | Attachment 6 Non-Disclosure Agreement | During the proposal stage, can the Government please allow offerors to submit an NDA from the employer’s perspective, with individual employee NDAs signed post contract award? | Per PWS 13.c., Initial NDAs shall be signed within one week of contract award. They do not have to be submitted with the proposal. | Yes, removed reference to NDAs in Addendum, ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 | ||
| 45 | General | NA | Can the Government please provide the incumbent contract value, contract number, and level of effort? | See J&A, Attachment 10, for information | No | ||
| 46 | General | NA | Can the Government please confirm whether there is an increase or decrease in the scope of this contract compared to the incumbent contract? | The requirement is a new contract that combines some of the OTA work and new task areas. | No | ||
| 47 | General | NA | Can the Government please provide the percentage of increase or decrease in the scope of the current contract relative to the incumbent contract? | 10%-15% increase | No | ||
| 48 | General | NA | Considering this is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) contract and to provide the best value to the Government, can the Government please allow offerors to propose long-term licensing costs instead of monthly costs, as short-term licenses are more expensive than long-term licenses? | Usage-based pricing removed. The managed service Contractor shall propose an enterprise user license agreement (EULA) subscription based pricing, and corresponding licensing model for 3.2M DoW users. FFP Payments/Invoicing will be monthly, but not based on usage. | Yes, updated RFP, PWS and Attachment 3, CLIN Pricing Worksheet | ||
| 49 | 3 | SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET | CLIN 0001 | The RFP designates this contract as Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), yet the CLIN descriptions require invoicing “in arrears based on actual usage” and state that unused funds will be returned via bilateral modification. This payment mechanism represents a consumption-based or variable model rather than a FFP structure. Further, there is a contradiction between the CLIN language and the PWS requirements - section 6.2.1 requires the contractor to propose an "enterprise user license agreement (EULA) subscription based pricing... for up to 3.4M DoW users." Commercial enterprise EULAs of this nature are firm-fixed-price commitments based on capacity tiers, ensuring the infrastructure and 24x7x365 support are consistently funded and maintained to ensure continuity with the predecessor OTA agreement. |
| To ensure continuity of the existing MSCB deployment and alignment with commercial best practices for an Enterprise EULA covering up to 3.4M users, will the Government amend the CLIN 0001 (and option CLIN) descriptions to remove the variable "actual usage" and refund language, thereby confirming this is a true Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract billed annually in advance for the enterprise capacity? | Usage-based pricing removed. The managed service Contractor shall propose an enterprise user license agreement (EULA) subscription based pricing, and corresponding licensing model for 3.2M DoW users. FFP Payments/Invoicing will be monthly, but not based on usage. | Yes, updated RFP, PWS and Attachment 3, CLIN Pricing Worksheet | |||||
| 50 | 3 | SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET | CLIN 0001 | In accordance with standard commercial practices for enterprise SaaS solutions of this scale, EULA subscriptions are billed as a fixed price based on maximum provisioned capacity (up to 3.4M users) and are billed annually in advance. However, the CLIN 0001 description mandates invoicing "monthly in arrears based on actual usage" with unused funds returned via a bilateral modification. To align with commercial SaaS practices and the PWS requirement for an Enterprise EULA, will the Government amend the CLIN descriptions to allow for standard commercial billing (i.e., fixed annual billing in advance) and remove the variable "actual usage" and refund language? | Usage-based pricing removed. The managed service Contractor shall propose an enterprise user license agreement (EULA) subscription based pricing, and corresponding licensing model for 3.2M DoW users. FFP Payments/Invoicing will be monthly, but not based on usage. | Yes, updated RFP, PWS and Attachment 3, CLIN Pricing Worksheet | |
| 51 | 3 | SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET | CLIN 0001 | Question: If the Government intends to retain the "actual usage" billing requirement in the CLINs, how will "actual usage" be defined and measured? Under commercial EULAs, an "Authorized User" is defined as an individual provisioned to access the technology, and the underlying infrastructure must be scaled and maintained to support the full licensed capacity at all times. Calculating monthly refunds based on fluctuating monthly logins creates a significant burden for both the Government and the Contractor, which will lead to cost increases, and contradicts the fixed-capacity nature of an Enterprise EULA. Will the Government confirm that "actual usage" for billing purposes equates to 3.4M capacity requested for the provisioned "Authorized Users" rather than active monthly network consumption? | Usage-based pricing removed. The managed service Contractor shall propose an enterprise user license agreement (EULA) subscription based pricing, and corresponding licensing model for 3.2M DoW users. FFP Payments/Invoicing will be monthly, but not based on usage. | Yes, updated RFP, PWS and Attachment 3, CLIN Pricing Worksheet | |
| 52 | 3 | SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET | CLIN 0001 | In a standard Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract, there is no "usage" or "commitment" ceiling to track. The CLIN requires the contractor to notify the Government when they reach "75% of their usage" and references a "commitment." Can the Government confirm if 75% of the 3.4M users represent the notification requirement or 75% of the FFP? | 75% language removed from CLINs x001 and x002. | Yes, updated RFP. | |
| 53 | RFP page 42 and 50 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-2(a) | N/A | The government references service level agreements in the RFP instructions in multiple places (pages 42, 50, 51). We identify Key Performance Indicators in the PWS, but we can find no list of SLAs. Please provide a list of SLAs if they are applicable to this contract. | No SLA requirement, removed from page 47. | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a)b(1)(c) Subfactor 3. | |
| 54 | PWS 47 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-2(a)b(c)4 | N/A | The government references "SLA (PWS 6.4.4, Appendix B)". We can not find the list of SLAs. Please provide a list of SLAs if they are applicable to this contract. | No SLA requirement, removed from page 47. | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a)b(1)(c) Subfactor 3. | |
| 55 | RFP page 47 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-2(a)b(d) | N/A | The instructions state: "The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposal to determine their capability to perform the engineering and mobility requirements outlined in PWS Section | |||
| 6.2,6.4.3, 6.4.4, and 6.4.5." The PWS does not contain 6.4 subsections/the referenced sections, 6.4.3, 6.4.4 and 6.4.5. Please update the cross reference or clarify it is 6.4. | Subfactor 3 updated to remove 6.4.3, 6.4.4 and 6.4.5 and CAT I and core software | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a)b(1)(c) Subfactor 3. | |||||
| 56 | RFP page 40 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-1(b) | N/A | The government follows it's instruction with the statement: “Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless considered essential to document or support the price.” Two sentences after this, the Government instructs offerors: “The offeror shall propose a fixed price payment plan as a separate document commensurate with the value of the deliverables and/or significant milestones in the PWS for this requirement.” Please confirm that this fixed price payment plan is required as a separate document in response to this solicitation. (reference b.vii.C, page 40 of 51) | Removed requirement for Fixed Price Payment Plan | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 (b)(12)(vii)(C) Volume III - Price to remove requiremnt for Fixed Price Payment Plan | |
| 57 | Attachment 1 PWS, page 20 of 62 | The Government provides the following unnumbered heading: "Performance Area 4 - Integrated Solutions Management" above the numbered Section 6.5 Task - Migration, Readiness Assessments, and Sustainment. There are no other 3 performance areas listed in the PWS. Please clarify and if there are other Performance Areas (e.g., 1-3), please provide. | "Performance Area 4 - Integrated Solutions Management" included in error. | Yes, deleted performance area 4 from pws | |||
| 58 | RFP Page 48 | Oral Proposals Factor D | If each company and individual is limited to only supporting one oral proposal, with Menlo Security being the "named" solution are they exempt from this clause? | Yes, Menlo Security, Inc. is excluded from participating | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a), Oral Proposals to add, "Menlo Security, Inc. is excluded from participating in any oral presentations." | ||
| 59 | DISA / DITCO is evaluating proposals based on the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) solution, however, locking in and securing price at the time of submission would lock in both the government, and the technology provider, to a standard license fee for the next 5 years. We would recommend using "plug numbers" to evaluate pricing, which would allow the managed service provider (prime contractor), to negotiate monthly or yearly with Menlo on actuals, and allow for "true-ups" for unused or dormant accounts. Has DISA / DITCO considered this approach, which would allow you to evaluate proposals on engineering and technical merit? | Not allowing plug numbers/true-ups. | No | ||||
| 60 | Attachment 1 PWS, page 30 of 62 | In PWS Section 9 the government indicates work "may be performed on-site, at all United States territories and possessions, and Non-United States territories and possessions Government facilities or at the Contractor’s facility, sub-Contractor facility, supplier, or other designated locations (e.g., corporate, 3rd party, or sub-Contractor)." | |||||
| In PWS Section 9 the government indicates "Performance of this contract shall be conducted on a remote basis. However, the contractor must be available, on rare occasions, to report to a government facility to access the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) for the express purpose of updating SECRET-level documentation." Please clarify which is correct, e.g., where is work to be completed? | Cannot provide an exact percentage breakdown, however, ~97% of work will be completed remotely, however, for rare SIPRNET emails/requirements the MSP may have to complete these SIPR requirements at a government facility. | No | |||||
| 61 | RFP 47 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-2(a) | In subsection (a) Basis for Contract Award, the government instructs: "Compliance with Section 508 standards will be considered prior to evaluating any of the selection criteria listed below." Question 1 - Does this mean that all volumes of our proposal submission must be 508 compliant? Question 2 - And if yes, would passing an accessibility checker be a sufficient level of compliance? | No. The offeror should notify the Government in its proposal if any exception to Section 508 standards is proposed. | Yes, Addendum to 52.212-2(a) a. Basis of Award | ||
| 62 | RFP 47 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-2(a) | In subsection (a), Basis for Contract Award, the government instructs: "Compliance with Section 508 standards will be considered prior to evaluating any of the selection criteria listed below." Stating this compliance is determined prior to evaluating our response, we request further clarification regarding what is needed to ensure we demonstrate our compliance with Section 508 standards. E.g., adding alt text, etc. to our slides would only be apparent to the SSB after the initial determination of compliance and the content listed in Section 14 of the PWS lists criteria for compliance on contract. E.g., would it be sufficient to demonstrate compliance for offerors to provide a statement of compliance in the Executive Summary? (If not, please provide alternative guidance.) | Updated RFP to state: The offeror should notify the Government in its proposal if any exception to Section 508 standards is proposed. Notification is required in Volume IV. | Yes, Addendum to 52.212-2(a) a. Basis of Award | ||
| 63 | Attachment 1 PWS, page 34 of 62 | In section 11.2 the government provides the following: "Contractor personnel must possess the interim or final security clearance eligibility delineated in the table below when performance starts." As the table only provides Final Secret, please clarify, is an Interim Secret at time of performance start allowable? | Final Secret Facility Clearance is required. | Yes, removed Interim Secret Facility Clearance from Section 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3.2. | |||
| 64 | RFP 48 of 51 | (d) | We find instruction for part of the orals team to consist of KP or corporate executive, however, we see no requirement for KP identified in the Solicitation or Attachments. As only 3 persons are allowed to present our technical and management response and there are no KP, we request that either the government remove the sentence, as it is not in the best interest of the government to put an executive in the role of a technical or management presenter. | Government declines request. | No | ||
| 65 | Attachment 5 DD254 cell 13 | DD 254 appears to have old base Plus 4, 1-year option periods (beginning in August 13, 2025, POP ending Aug 12, 2030); the PWS indicates (Section 10) base Plus 4, 1-year option periods (beginning April 15, 2026 through last 1/2 year option period ending October 14, 2031). Please clarify/update the Period of Performance on the DD254. | The period of performance is an estimate and is anticipated to begin April 15, 2026. The DD254 may be updated prior to award. | No | |||
| 66 | RFP 45 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-2(a) | In subsection (a) Basis for Contract Award, the government instructs: "Compliance with Section 508 standards will be considered prior to evaluating any of the selection criteria listed below." Question 1 - Does this mean that all volumes of our proposal submission must be 508 compliant? Question 2 - And if yes, would passing an accessibility checker be a sufficient level of compliance? | No. The offeror should notify the Government in its proposal if any exception to Section 508 standards is proposed. | Yes, Addendum to 52.212-2(a) a. Basis of Award | ||
| 67 | RFP 45 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-2(b) | In subsection (a), Basis for Contract Award, the government instructs: "Compliance with Section 508 standards will be considered prior to evaluating any of the selection criteria listed below." We also see that in the contracting volume Section 508 compliance is listed in the Table 1 Proposal Organization, however, there's no information in the instructions to indicate what the Government is expecting in our response. Please clarify, as stating this compliance is determined prior to evaluating our response, offerors need instruction how to ensure our compliance with Section 508 standards is assessed. E.g., would it be sufficient to demonstrate compliance for offerors to provide a statement of compliance in the Contract Volume? (If not, please provide alternative guidance.) | Yes. Notification is required in Volume IV.Updated RFP to state: The offeror should notify the Government in its proposal if any exception to Section 508 standards is proposed. | Yes, Addendum to 52.212-2(a) a. Basis of Award | ||
| 68 | RFP 48 of 51 | (d) | We find instruction for part of the orals team to consist of KP or corporate executive, however, we see no requirement for KP identified in the Solicitation or Attachments. As only 3 persons are allowed to present our technical and management response, we request that either the government clarify what Key Personnel are required or remove the requirement for an executive to be included in the three presenters. | Government declines request. | No | ||
| 69 | Attachment 5 DD254 cell 13 | DD 254 appears to have old base Plus 4, 1-year option periods (beginning in August 13, 2025, POP ending Aug 12, 2030); the PWS indicates (Section 10) base Plus 4, 1-year option periods (beginning April 15, 2026 through last 1/2 year option period ending October 14, 2031). Please clarify/update the Period of Performance on the DD254. | The period of performance is an estimate and is anticipated to begin April 15, 2026. The DD254 may be updated prior to award. | No | |||
| 70 | RFP 39 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-2(b) | In Table 1 Proposal Organization, the government lists "GFP" as part of Offeror's Contracts volume. Please clarify if there is any response related to GFP that we must provide with our offer. E.g., there are no fill in instructions for Attachment 7, and we find no instructions that give guidance regarding what the government wants offerors to provide with the proposal. | GFP Attachment is provided as information only for the offeror, but there are GFP requirements/clauses in the RFP | Removed GFP from Table 1, Proposal Organization Volume IV | ||
| 71 | RFP 39 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-2(b) | In Table 1 Proposal Organization, the government lists "GFP" as part of Offeror's Contracts volume. If the government is requesting that we provide the Attachment 7 back so that it can be incorporated into our contract, please provide that guidance/clarification. | Attachment 7 is for awareness. GFP Attachment does not have to be returned. Upon issuance of award, items identified in the GFP attachment will be issued as GFP via the GFP Module in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) suite and stored in Electronic Document Access in PIEE. | Removed GFP from Table 1, Proposal Organization Volume IV | ||
| 72 | RFP Page 38 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-1(b) (Administrative Requirements) | The government instructions indicate generic resumes are excluded from page count. Please confirm there are no resumes required with this response. | Resumes are not required | Yes, update addendum to remove reference to resumes | ||
| 73 | RFP Page 38 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-1(b) (Administrative Requirements) | The government instructions indicate generic resumes are excluded from page count. If there are resumes required with this response, please provide instructions and evaluation criteria for the personnel, e.g., into what volume they should be provided, what positions and minimum requirements, if any. | Resumes are not required | Yes, update addendum to remove reference to resumes | ||
| 74 | RFP Page 38 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-1(b) (Administrative Requirements) | The government instructions indicate past performance is excluded from page count. Please confirm there are no past performance requirements with this response. | Past performance is excluded. | Yes, update addendum to remove reference to past performance | ||
| 75 | RFP Page 38 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-1(b) (Administrative Requirements) | The government instructions indicate past performance information is excluded from page count. If there are requirements for past performance with this response, please provide instructions and evaluation criteria for the past performances, e.g., into what volume that information should be provided, how many and how they will be evaluated. | Past performance is removed. | Yes, update addendum to remove reference to past performance | ||
| 76 | RFP Page 38 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-1(b) (Administrative Requirements) | The government instructions indicate the SCRM plan is excluded from page count. If this is required, please provide instructions and evaluation criteria (if any) for the SCRM, e.g., into what volume, and any requirements that it must conform to. | Yes, udpated Addendum. | Yes, SCRM info added to #12, in ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 (b)(12)(vii)(D) Volume IV - Contract Documentation. | ||
| 77 | RFP Page 38 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-1(b) (Administrative Requirements) | The government instructions indicate that the table of contents will not be included in the page count. The vol 1 executive summary requires a master table of contents. Is this master table of contents OUTSIDE the 2-page limit of the Executive Summary? | Yes. Table of Contents does not count towards page limit. | No | ||
| 78 | RFP Page 38 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-1(b) (Administrative Requirements) | The government instructions indicate that the table of contents will not be included in the page count. The vol 1 executive summary requires a master table of contents. Is this master table of contents OUTSIDE the 2-page limit of the Executive Summary? | Yes. Table of Contents does not count towards page limit. | No | ||
| 79 | RFP Page 38 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-1(b) (Administrative Requirements) | The government instructions indicate that the table of contents will not be included in the page count. Will the government exclude a list of slides in the Volume 2 slide deck from the 36-slide count? | Yes | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a), Oral Proposals to add, "This limitation does not include a cover slide or an agenda/summary slide." | ||
| 80 | RFP Page 38 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-1(b) (Administrative Requirements) | The government instructions indicate that the cover page will not be included in the page count. Will the government exclude the cover slide from the Volume 2 slide deck from the 36-slide count? | Yes | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a), Oral Proposals to add, "This limitation does not include a cover slide or an agenda/summary slide." | ||
| 81 | RFP Page 38 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-1(b) (Administrative Requirements) | The government instructions indicate that offers are to submit the NDA. Please provide further guidance as to who needs to fill this out (e.g., the 3 presenters we intend to bid)? | Per PWS 13.c., Initial NDAs shall be signed within one week of contract award. They do not have to be submitted with the proposal | Yes, remove reference to NDAs in Addendum, ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 | ||
| 82 | RFP Page 38 of 51 | Addendum to 52.212-1(b) (Administrative Requirements) | The government instructions indicate that offers are to submit the NDA. If this is to be provided back blank, with the intention of incorporating into our contract, please provide that guidance/clarification. | Per PWS 13.c., Initial NDAs shall be signed within one week of contract award. They do not have to be submitted with the proposal | Yes, remove reference to NDAs in Addendum, ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 | ||
| 83 | Attachment+3+CLIN+Pricing+Worksheet | All of Attchment 3 | Attachment+3+CLIN+Pricing+Worksheet | May contractors change formulas, add rows or columns to Attachment 3 Cost Workbook? One example of a change to formulas would be in column J of the (CUI) Summary tab where the formula is missing. | The Government has updated the CLIN Pricing Worksheet to correct the formula errors. The Contractors may add additional rows above the "ADD ADDITIONAL ROWS IF NECESSARY" to provide all support needed for the specific CLIN. However, the Contractor shall not add any columns. If a Contractor needs to provide additional data to support their proposal, they can explain in their Cost Narrative. | Yes. Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet has been updated. | |
| 84 | 40 | Instruction (b)(12)(vii)(B) | Volume II instructions state: "The file size shall not exceed 2MB." This is unrealistically low given the expected response content. Would the Government update the file size limit to 25MB? | Updated. The file size of each document shall not exceed 20MB. | Yes, ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 (b)(12)(vi) Electronic Offers and (vii)(B) Volume II - Technical/Management Approach | ||
| 85 | 40 | Instruction (b)(12)(vii)(B) | For the Orals PPT, please confirm the Cover slide and breaker slides (between Subfactors) are excluded from the 36-slide limit. | This limitation does not include a cover slide or an agenda/summary slide. No breaker slides requried. | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a), Oral Proposals to add, "This limitation does not include a cover slide or an agenda/summary slide." | ||
| 86 | 45 | Evaluation b(1)(c) Subfactor 3 | Evalution criteria references PWS tasks that are NOT included in the PWS: 6.4.3, 6.4.4, 6.4.5 | ||||
| Would the Government clarify the evaluated subfactor PWS citations or update the PWS to include the evaluated and referenced PWS tasks? | This evaluation factor was corrected and updated. | Yes, Subfactor 3 was updated to remove 6.4.3, 6.4.4 and 6.4.5 and add Patching and Vulnerability Maintenance section 13 | |||||
| 87 | 46 | Evaluation b(1)(d) Subfactor 4 | Evalution (d) Subfactor 4: Engineering and Mobility Support, PWS Paragraphs: 6.2, 6.7.1, 6.7.3, 6.7.5, 6.7.6, 6.7.7 states "The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposal to determine their capability to perform the engineering and mobility requirements outlined in PWS Section 6.2,6.4.3, 6.4.4, and 6.4.5. " |
The PWS 6.4.3, 6.4.4, and 6.4.5 do not align to the heading and subfactor topics 1 through 4 to be addressed.
| Would the Government update the evaluation language to align the PWSs to be addressed. | That was an error. The correct PWS references are now embedded in the questions -- they are 6.2, 6.7.1, 6.7.3, 6.7.4, 6.7.5, 6.7.6, 6.7.7 | Yes, updated ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2(a)b(1)(d) Subfactor 4. | |||||
| 88 | PWS 15 | PWS 15, CMMC states: "The Program Management Office/COR has determined that CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) is required for this contract. In accordance with CMMC policy codified at 32 CFR §170, Contractor compliance with CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) must be met at time of award, and continued compliance with the requirements of 32 CFR §170 is necessary for the life of the contract." | |||||
| Would the Government allow self assessed CMMC 2 at time of award? | The final CMMC level for the contract will be CMMC Level 2 (3CPAO), however, the Government will allow vendors with a minimum compliance of CMMC Level 2 (Self) to propose on the contract. The winning vendor must have or attain CMMC Level 2 (3CPAO) compliance by the first option year of the contract. | Yes, updated PWS Section 15 to allow Level 2 (Self) at award and require Level 2 (C3PAO) at option year 1. | |||||
| 89 | PWS 15 | PWS 15, CMMC states: "The Program Management Office/COR has determined that CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) is required for this contract. In accordance with CMMC policy codified at 32 CFR §170, Contractor compliance with CMMC Level 2 (C3PAO) must be met at time of award, and continued compliance with the requirements of 32 CFR §170 is necessary for the life of the contract." | |||||
| Would the Government permit a subcontractor/partner to have the requried certification? | CMMC requirements apply to prime contractors and their subcontractors throughout the supply chain at all tiers that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI on contractor information systems in the performance of the DoD contract or subcontract.Prime is required to have Level 2 (Self) at award and the Subcontractor Level (FCI) would be required to have Level 1 (Self), the Subcontractor Level (CUI) would be required to have Level 2 (Self). At the start of option year 1, Prime is required to have Level 2 (C3PAO) and Subcontractor Level (FCI) is required to have Level 1 (Self) and Subcontractor Level (CUI) is required to have Level 2 (C3PAO) | Yes, updated PWS Section 15 to allow Level 2 (Self) at award and require Level 2 (C3PAO) at option year 1. | |||||
| 90 | PWS 13 | Would the Government please provide the Electronic Product Listing. It is not included in the solicitation. | No Electronic Product Listing required. | Updated PWS 13.f to remove H2 and add H8 and H9. | |||
| 91 | RFP Page 45 | a) Subfactor 1, sub-subfactor 1 | N/A | Will the government provide as GFE any custom Menlo browser extensions that have been developed during the current contract? | No | No | |
| 92 | RFP Page 45 | a) Subfactor 1, sub-subfactor 1 | N/A | Will the government provide an electronic reading room with architectural diagrams depicting the current configuration of the internet code isolation managed service? | Due to its highly sensitive nature, architectural diagrams and other similar documentation will only be provided upon award of the contract to the winning vendor. | No | |
| 93 | RFP Page 45 | a) Subfactor 1, sub-subfactor 2 | N/A | Will the government provide an electronic reading room with architectural diagrams depicting the current configuration of the DISN Joint Infrastructure (DJI) security stack, including Web Content Filtering (WCF) and Enterprise Break & Inspect (EBI) and its integration with CBII? | Due to its highly sensitive nature, architectural diagrams of the DJI security stack and other similar documentation will only be provided upon award of the contract to the winning vendor. | No | |
| 94 | RFP Page 45 | a) Subfactor 1, sub-subfactor 3 | N/A | Will the government provide a complete list of DISA/DoW Data Loss Prevention (DLP) policies as an appendix to the CBII RFP/PWS? | No | No | |
| 95 | RFP Page 45 | a) Subfactor 1 | N/A | Subfactor 1 states that the "offeror's proposal must meet all the minimum requirements set forth below" in reference to sub-subfactors 1-4. Can the government provide service levels, metrics or other measurable thresholds describing the "minimum requirement" thresholds for each Subbfactor 1 sub-subfactors 1-4? | No SLA requirement. | No | |
| 96 | RFP Page 46 | b) Subfactor 2, sub-subfactor 1 | N/A | Will the government provide monthly Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III ticket volumes for the past 36 months? | Due to its highly sensitive nature, the Government will not provide specific service desk data, however, the following general information provides a point of reference for CBII managed service provider level of effort/scale for the Service Desk Tier I, II, and III for the overseeing of the CBII service desk operations… in a recent 6-month period, the following number (monthly average) of service desk related actions/tickets occurred: (A) Tier 1 new troubleshooting tickets opened (for a CBII mission partner organization with ~15K users) = averaged ~30 new Tier 1 tickets per month over the 6-month period (~180 tickets opened during this period); (B) Tier 2 new troubleshooting tickets opened = averaged ~100 new Tier 2 tickets per month over the 6-month period (~600 tickets opened during this period); (C) Tier 3 tickets worked/escalated to Menlo with CBII MSP assistance with troubleshooting the issue = averaged ~15 new Tier 3 tickets per month over the 6-month period (~90 tickets opened during this period); ACROSS ALL TIER LEVELS (I, II, & III) = ~900 NEW TICKETS OPENED DURING THIS RECENT 6-MONTH TIME FRAME | No | |
| 97 | RFP Page 46 | b) Subfactor 2, sub-subfactor 1 | N/A | Will the government provide monthly volumes of tickest that have been escalated from Tier II to Tier III for the past 36 months? | Due to its highly sensitive nature, the Government will not provide specific service desk data, however, the following general information provides a point of reference for CBII managed service provider level of effort/scale for the Service Desk Tier I, II, and III for the overseeing of the CBII service desk operations… in a recent 6-month period, the following number (monthly average) of service desk related actions/tickets occurred: (A) Tier 1 new troubleshooting tickets opened (for a CBII mission partner organization with ~15K users) = averaged ~30 new Tier 1 tickets per month over the 6-month period (~180 tickets opened during this period); (B) Tier 2 new troubleshooting tickets opened = averaged ~100 new Tier 2 tickets per month over the 6-month period (~600 tickets opened during this period); (C) Tier 3 tickets worked/escalated to Menlo with CBII MSP assistance with troubleshooting the issue = averaged ~15 new Tier 3 tickets per month over the 6-month period (~90 tickets opened during this period); ACROSS ALL TIER LEVELS (I, II, & III) = ~900 NEW TICKETS OPENED DURING THIS RECENT 6-MONTH TIME FRAME | No | |
| 98 | RFP Page 46 | b) Subfactor 2, sub-subfactor 1 | N/A | Will the government provide the average mean time to resolve for Tier II tickets prior to Tier III escalation for the past 36 months? | Due to its highly sensitive nature, the Government will not provide specific service desk data, however, the following general information provides a point of reference for CBII managed service provider level of effort/scale for the Service Desk Tier I, II, and III for the overseeing of the CBII service desk operations… in a recent 6-month period, the following number (monthly average) of service desk related actions/tickets occurred: (A) Tier 1 new troubleshooting tickets opened (for a CBII mission partner organization with ~15K users) = averaged ~30 new Tier 1 tickets per month over the 6-month period (~180 tickets opened during this period); (B) Tier 2 new troubleshooting tickets opened = averaged ~100 new Tier 2 tickets per month over the 6-month period (~600 tickets opened during this period); (C) Tier 3 tickets worked/escalated to Menlo with CBII MSP assistance with troubleshooting the issue = averaged ~15 new Tier 3 tickets per month over the 6-month period (~90 tickets opened during this period); ACROSS ALL TIER LEVELS (I, II, & III) = ~900 NEW TICKETS OPENED DURING THIS RECENT 6-MONTH TIME FRAME | No | |
| 99 | RFP Page 46 | b) Subfactor 2, sub-subfactor 1 | N/A | Will the government provide the average mean time to resolve for Tier II tickets for the past 36 months? | Refer to answer to question 96, 97, and 98 provides some scale/potential level of effort | No | |
| 100 | RFP Page 46 | b) Subfactor 2, sub-subfactor 1 | N/A | Will the government provide a breakdown of all Tier II tickets by issue category/subject matter for the past 36 months including all break/fix, configuration issues, troubleshooting, software installations, and hardware repair issues? | Refer to answer to question 96, 97, and 98 provides some scale/potential level of effort | No | |
| 101 | RFP Page 46 | b) Subfactor 2, sub-subfactor 1 | N/A | Does the government have a threshold for resolving a Tier II ticket before escalating to Tier III? | No SLAs. | No | |
| 102 | RFP Page 46 | b) Subfactor 2, sub-subfactor 2 | N/A | Are calls and emails from Mission Partner (CC/S/A/FAs) Service Desks separate from the Tier II ticket volumes requested in question 100? | Yes, however, they are closely aligneed. One is addressing an open service ticket, however, the other is providing technical assistance to a mission partner that may not be related to an open service ticket. | No | |
| 103 | RFP Page 46 | b) Subfactor 2, sub-subfactor 2 | N/A | Will the government provide a complete list of the various Mission Partner (CC/S/A/FAs) Service Desk ticketing systems? | After contract award -- winning vendor will receive MP list. | No | |
| 104 | RFP Page 46 | b) Subfactor 2, sub-subfactor 2 | N/A | If calls and emails from Mission Partner (CC/S/A/FAs) Service Desks are separate from the Tier II ticket volumes requested in question 17, can the government provide monthly volumes for these calls and emails by contact type (call, email, or electronic ticket) for the past 36 months? | Refer to answer to question 96, 97, and 98 provides some scale/potential level of effort | No | |
| 105 | RFP Page 46 | b) Subfactor 2, sub-subfactor 2 | N/A | If calls and emails from Mission Partner (CC/S/A/FAs) Service Desks are separate from the Tier II ticket volumes requested in question, can the government provide mean time to resolve for these calls and emails and electronic tickets for the past 36 months? | Refer to answer to question 96, 97, and 98 provides some scale/potential level of effort | No | |
| 106 | RFP Page 46 | b) Subfactor 2, sub-subfactor 2 | N/A | Will the government provide a breakdown of all Mission Partner (CC/S/A/FAs) Service Desk Tier II tickets by issue category/subject matter for the past 36 months including all break/fix, configuration issues, troubleshooting, software installations, and hardware repair issues? | Refer to answer to question 96, 97, and 98 provides some scale/potential level of effort | No |
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 .