QNA_J258R-SJFHQE_AAS-FEB_11.pdf

Solicitation No: HDTRA1‐15‐R‐0052

Question Answer

1 Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation under solicitation number

HDTRA115R0052 contain requirements similar to a current contract?

Yes

2 If possible, please provide the current contract number. HDTRA1‐11‐D‐0015

3 Or, is this a new requirement for the government? No

4 Reference: Section B – CLIN structure ‐ Question: What determines which work will fall to the FFP CLINS versus the CPFF

CLINS? If the offeror believes there is a best‐value solution by providing one versus the other, can this be offered as part of the price proposal?

Cost‐reimbursable task orders will be issued for efforts involving variability in performance such as planning and supporting CWMD exercises. Fixed‐price efforts shall include task orders centering on more clearly defined requirements. Yes, offers have the flexability to propose the best approach for meeting the

Governments requirements within the constraints of the RFP.

5 Section B (page 7 of 94) and Section F (page 11 of 94) Item Number 0007 is missing. Please Clarify.

Item # 7 is now the Minimum Order Guranatee and Item #8 has been removed.

6 Pg 3 Item No 0002 It appears that R&D funding will be used to support

TOs under this IDIQ. Would it be possible for businesses with 541712

NAICS to count as small business on TOs that involve this type of funding, even if they are large under the primary NAICS code for the overall IDIQ contract; thus, allowing them to be part of the 25% SB allocation for a prime?

No, this effort does not fall within the SBA's table of size standards includes the following note 11 regarding the R&D NAICs codes: "11. NAICS code 541711 and

541712 – For research and development contracts requiring the delivery of a manufactured product, the appropriate size standard is that of the manufacturing industry. The preponderance of the work for this effort falls under NAICS 541990;

all SB allocations should be under this NAICS.

7 Section F, F1. Period of Performance, page 11 Period of Performance states delivery date for CLIN 001 as 1 July; however section L.3.3.2 states transition plan is to start 30 days prior to September 18, 2016 (end of contract). This puts the start date as 18 August. Please clarify.

The Period of Performance is section F on page 11 has been corrected to be consistant with the requested 30 day transition period that begins August 18, 2016.

8 Reference: F1. Period of Performance, page 11, BASIC CONTRACT

ORDERING PERIOD / TASK ORDER(S) PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE. The ordering period of the basic contract shall commence upon receipt of a fully executed contract and continue 60 months after contract award. If exercised, the Option ordering period shall extend the ordering period for an additional 60 months. Question: This statement indicates that the basic contract ordering period is 60 months. It also alludes to an optional ordering period of an additional 60 months. This conflicts with other RFP references that show the ordering period of the delivery orders to be a total 60 months after contract award. Would the Government clarify/confirm that the ordering period is a total of 60 months after contract award?

Correct, this effort is for a total of 60 months after contract award. The language in section F.1. has been corrected.

9 RFP, page 11, There is inconsistency between the Period of Performance

(PoP) start date, the duration of the transition period, and the date by which full support must be achieved. Page 11 of the RFP lists the start of the PoP as 1 July 2016. Page 69 of the RFP then states that the transition period shall have a duration of 30 days, and that the date of full support shall start on 18 September 2016. There is a period of 80 days between when the PoP starts and the date by which full support must be achieved, but only a 30 day period for transition. Will the government please state the correct actual duration of the transition period, and the date by which full support must be achieved?

The Period of Performance is section F on page 11 has been corrected to be consistant with the requested 30 day transition period that begins August 18, 2016.

10 Pg. 11 para F1. States the ordering period of the basic contract shall commence upon receipt of a fully executed contract and continue 60 months after contract award. If exercised, the Option ordering period shall extend the ordering period for an additional 60 months. Please clarify is the "ordering period" 1 year or 5 years or is this is like the J3/7 contract with 10 year period?

This contract is for a 5 year period of performance

Reference: Section H, Clauses Incorporated by Full Text, 252.215‐9004, Key Personnel, page 22 and L.3.3.2 Management Approach, page 70 and

L.3.3.3.3(4), page 73 Section H: The personnel listed below may, with the consent of the contracting parties, be amended from time to time during the course of the Contract to either add or delete personnel as appropriate.

To Be Completed on Individual Task Orders L.3.3.2: The management plan shall also include 2 Key Personnel Positions in support of the overall SOO. One is the overall Contract Program Manager and the other is a Senior Analyst for Intelligence, Plans, and Resources

Integration that will support the J2/5/8R Front Office. L.3.3.3.3: Sample

TO 0001 will include one Key Personnel position ‐ The Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement Advisor.Question: Identification of Key

Personnel. The RFP requires three individuals be identified as Key

Personnel. These are the Program Manager and Senior Analyst found in the Management Section and the Strategic Planning and Performance

Measurement Advisor in TO 0001. Would the government confirm and/or clarify the following:

a) Do the three positions identified above identify all Government RFP – r Yes

b) Will the contractor be allowed to propose additional Key Personnel in t Yes, but they will not be subject to a key personnel clause that requires government approval for their replacement.

c) Will the Program Manager and Senior Analyst positions (not in the

TOs) be priced, and if so, where should this be included in the cost proposal?

Yes, they should be priced, but they are to be priced on the task order based on their levels of participation on each task order.

12 Pg. 32 para (j) Weapons‐ deals specifically with weapons and contract personnel in USFK. Is it expected that all contractors deploying should carry weapons in theater or is this specific to USFK only? Will DTRA provide weapons for properly trained contractors or will they be provided by the COCOM or expected to be provided by the contractor?

No, contractors deploying will NOT be expected or permitted to carry weapons in theater. Should a need arise this will be addressed on a case by case basis;

however, the overall position is no weapons will be required in the performance of this effort.

13 Reference: H, Key Personnel, page 22. Question: Given the complexity of this work and overall management required, we recommend at a minimum a Program Manager and Senior Analyst is reflected here as it is in Sections L and M.

The 2 positions have been added as recommended.

Title: Advisory and Assistance support services to the J2/5/8R Directorate and the SJFHQ‐E

14 Reference: Section H, Clauses Incorporated by Full Text, 252.215‐9007, Substitution of Personnel, page 44), The Contractor shall submit complete resumes for the proposed substitutes and any additional information requested by the CO. Proposed substitutes should meet minimum qualifications and job descriptions to those of the persons (s) being replaced. The CO will notify the Contractor within 5 calendar days after receipt of all required information of the decision on substitutions.

The task order will be modified to reflect any approved changes of personnel.Question: Understanding it is the responsibility of the contractor to notify the Government of personnel changes, is it the intent of the Government to make the final decision and approval on contractor personnel substitutions?

Yes

The evaluation criteria are descriptive as in (a) blue/outstanding or purple/good, (b) very relevant or relevant, and (c) substantial confidence or satisfactory confidence.

a) Within the blue/outstanding evaluation are there degrees of blue/outstanding? (Can one offer be evaluated as better than another and be selected because it is "more" or "better" blue/outstanding?)

b) Within the very relevant evaluation are there degrees of relevancy?

(Can one offer be evaluated as better than another and be selected because it is "more" or "better" very relevant?)

c) Within the substantial confidence evaluation are there degrees of substantial confidence? (Can one offer be evaluated as better than another and be selected because it provides "more" or "better" substantial confidence?)

d) Or, are these much like technical acceptability in a low price technically acceptable solicitation, where once evaluated as blue/outstanding, very relevant, or providing substantial confidence there are no degrees of blue/outstanding, very relevant, or substantial confidence in the evaluation and source selection?

16 SF33 (page 1) and Section L.1.2 (page 51) and L.1.3.8 (page 56) ‐ SF33 #9 states Original and 5 copies. Section L.1.2 states 5 Copies and 1 Electronic for each volume. Section L.1.3.8 states “The CD‐ROM(s) will be included with the “original” paper copy of each volume.” And later states “If there are discrepancies between the “original” electronic proposal and the

“copy” paper proposal, the “original” electronic proposal shall prevail.”

Will the government accept 1 Original and 4 photocopies?

The government will accept 1 original in electronic format, and requires 5 paper copies of each volume.

17 Attachment L‐1 Are we limited to the format in attachment L‐1, as long as we include all data requested in the form?

Yes

18 The date shown in 52.216‐21 (f) does not match the date in 52‐216.22 (d).

Please clarify the correct date.

Corrected to correspond with the date changes in section F. The date listed in both clause 52.216‐21(f) and 52.216.22(d) reflect one year beyond the ordering period as prescribed in section F.1. Period of Performance "..The period of performance of task orders may extend one year beyond the end of the ordering period of the basic IDIQ contract."

19 RFP page 70 and 103 Clearance requirements for Program Manager and

Senior Analyst for Intelligence, Plans, and Resources Integration. On page 70 and page 103 the two key personnel who are not part of the STO staffing are clearly defined. However, the clearance requirements at start of award are not defined. Please specify.

As stated in the SOO, 7.0, "Approximately eighty percent (80%) of all A&AS contractors directly supporting the J2/5/8R Directorate must possess a current

DoD TOP SECRET clearance and investigation date, and have SCI elegibility at time of contract award. The remaining 20% must possess a current DOD SECRET clearnce and able to obtain a TS/SCI." The Offeror shall submit a management approach to accomplish the overall program and contract objectives to include these 2 Key Personnel positions. These key personnel will not need a Top Secret at contract award; however, they must have the ability to obtain Top Secret.

20 Section L (page 79 of 94) Requirement L.5.5 is missing, please clarify. Inadvertant error, L.5.6 has been renumbered to L.5.5

21 Reference: L.1.2 Organization/Distribution/ Number of Copies/Pager

Limits, page 53 ‐ Question: Would the Government please confirm the page limit for Vol IV, Cost, is 25 pages.

Correct, 25 pages total for Vol IV, Cost.

Reference: L.1.2 Organization/Distribution/Number of Copies/Page

Limits, page 52. IV

Cost: Tab 1: Sample TO 1 Tab 2: Sample TO 2

Question 1: What does the Government intend with this organizational construct?

The government intends to separately evaluate cost for each individual Task

Order.

Question 2: Is it the Government’s intention that offerors submit two complete, stand alone cost volumes, one for each TO?

Yes

Question 3: Does information which is the same for both TOs need to be repeated?

Yes, the proposals for each Task Order should stand alone.

23 Section L.1.3.5.3, page 55 Lists documents not counted for page count;

and the list mentions a document called the Labor Category Table. A

Labor Category Table is not described in the RFP as a separate document.

Please clarify.

Removed from the list.

24 Section L.1.3.9 (page 57 of 94) Did the Government mean Volume IV opposed to Volume V?

Corrected within section L.1.3.9 from V to IV

25 Reference: L.1.3.9 Cost Information, page 57. All cost information shall be addressed ONLY in the Proposal Documentation and Contract cost volumes, Volumes I and V. Question: Presume this is a typo and should be Volumes I and IV.

Corrected

26 Section L.2.13 (page 61 of 94) Please provide the referenced Attachment

S‐1 Small Business Commitment Template.

Posted on FedBizOpps on 02/03/16 https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DTRA/DTRA01/J258R20152016_A/listing.html

27 Pg. 61 Para L.2.13 references Attachment S‐1? Was it provided? Posted on FedBizOpps on 02/03/16 https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DTRA/DTRA01/J258R20152016_A/listing.html

28 Reference: L.2.13 Small Business Commitment, page 61. Question: Will the contractor be required to comply with the DOD small business targets in addition to the targets set forth in the RFP?

Yes

29 Reference: L.2.13, page 61. First paragraph refers to Attachment S‐1. This attachment has not been included in the Final RFP. Question: Would the

Government please provide Attachment S‐1?

Posted on FedBizOpps on 02/03/16 https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DTRA/DTRA01/J258R20152016_A/listing.html

There are no "shades" of blue or "degrees of relevancy", because the purpose of the colors is to provide a general evaluation of the offeror's proposal within a specific category as a means to help define what the offeror is providing.

However, the underlying narrative evaluations that give rise to that color will vary from offeror to offeror and as part of reaching a decision as to which offer constitutes the best value, it may become necessary to distinguish between offerors that might have achieved the same color ranking. It falls upon the source selection official, with the assistance of source selection advisors, to make those distinctions utilizing the evaluation critieria in section M of the solicitation.

30 L.2.16.2 and L.2.16.3/page 65 ‐ These sections mention an attached GPAT to be filled out, however no GPAT was attached. Please provide the

GPAT.

Posted on FedBizOpps on 02/03/16 https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DTRA/DTRA01/J258R20152016_A/listing.html

31 Reference: L.2.16.2, page 65. Reference is made to the attached

Government Product/Service Accessibility Template (GPAT). Question:

Would the government provide the referenced GPAT?

Posted on FedBizOpps on 02/03/16 https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DTRA/DTRA01/J258R20152016_A/listing.html

32 Reference: L.3.2, Volume Organization, page 67, Subfactor A –

Management Approach to include: Both the 3rd and 5th bullets indicate the location of the resumes. Question: Does the Government want the resumes to be included at the end of Subfactor A as indicated in the 5th bullet?

Yes, correction made in Amendment 01 of the RFP

33 Reference: L.3.3.2 SUBFACTOR A: MANAGEMENT APPROACH, page 69, states, “The Offeror’s overall transition approach shall include a 30‐day transition period prior to the start date of September 18, 2016.”

Question: This contradicts Section F1. Period of Performance (pg. 11), which identifies the POP from 01‐JUL‐2016 TO 30‐JUN‐2021. Will the start date be 1 July 2016, or 18 September 2016?

The Period of Performance is section F on page 11 has been corrected to be consistant with the requested 30 day transition period that begins August 18, 2016.

34 Reference: L.3.3.2 Subfactor A: management Approach, page 70. Senior

Analyst for Intelligence, Plans and Resources Integration: This position will be under the J2/5/8R front office support function Question: How should offerors allocate the hours and costs of the Senior Analyst for

Intelligence, Plans, and Resources between the two TOs?

The Offerors do not have to allocate any time for this position in the 2 Sample

TO's.

35 Reference: L.3.3.2 Subfactor A: Management Approach, page 70.

Program Manager’s time will be allocated proportionally across all six organizational elements identified in the SOO. Question: Since TO 0001 and TO 0002 support J50 and J51, respectively, which are each one of the six organizational elements to bear a proportion of the cost, should we assume then that the Program Manager’s time should be allocated at one‐sixth each to TO 0001 and TO 0002? If not, how should the PM time be allocated?

Offerors should propose at what proportion they want to allocate the Program

Manager's time for each Sample Task Order and across the 6 organizational elements.

36 L.3.3.3.1, page 71 Page 71, under L.3.3.3.1 –requires “The Strategic

Planning and Performance Measurement Advisor” and references STO1.

However STO1 no longer defines the key person. Please clarify.

Sample Task Order 1 shall include "The Strategic Planning and Performance

Measurement Advisor" as the key personnel for the task order. The title and description have been added to the TO SOW.

37 Subsection L.3.3.3.3, Subparagraph (4) (Section 4), page 73. Sample TO 1, Section 1.2 (Key Personnel), This subparagraph identifies a Key Personnel

Position of “Strategic Planning and Performance Advisor” for Sample Task

Order 1. Please clarify the requirement for a key person in Sample TO 1.

The final version of the SOW does not list the requirement for a Strategic

Planning and Performance Advisor in Section 1.2.

Sample Task Order 1 shall include "The Strategic Planning and Performance

Measurement Advisor" as the key personnel for the task order. The title and description have been added to the TO SOW.

38 Reference: L.3.3.3.3 (3) Section 3 (page 73) and (4) Section 4 (page 74). In

Section 3, states the Offeror’s Staffing Plan is to clearly demonstrate and identify that the proposed personnel possess the required Disciplines and

Skill sets identified in the individual Sample TO SOWs. The notional example table (4th column) indicates that a Disciplines/Skill Sets

Reference exists. In Section 4 which is specific to TO 0001, the last bullet states “Qualifications cross reference to the applicable Disciplines and

Skill sets of the individual TO SOW Exhibits” Question: Neither TO 0001 nor TO 0002 SOWs identifies any Disciplines and Skill sets references.

Specific to TO 0001, there is no Exhibit of Disciplines and Skill sets within the TO 0001 SOW. What specifically does the government want Offerors to put in the 4th column of the table as we are directed to include all items in the Notional table.

Offerors should propose the disciplines and skill sets to fulfill the requirements of the specific TO's.

39 Reference: L.3.3.3.3(3) Staffing Plans, page 73. The Offeror’s Staffing Plan shall clearly demonstrate and identify that the Proposed personnel possess the required Disciplines and Skill sets identified in the individual

Sample TO SOWs. Further, the Sample TO Staffing Plan shall clearly indicate the individual’s employment arrangement such as Prime, Sub‐ contractor team membership, contingency hire, etc. Question: The RFP requires names and resumes for Key personnel positions in para

L.3.3.3.3(4). Will the government confirm that all other positions in the staffing plan need only to specify those items listed in table L.3.4 and do not require names and resumes?

Other positions in the staffing plan should specify those items, including names, but do not require resumes.

40 Reference: L.4.2, Description of Team, page 74 Question: Is there a sample letter that contains preferred terms or verbiage for the Client

Authorized Letter?

No. Offerors may propose appropriate terms and verbiage

41 Para. L4.4 states that "Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror. Please clarify what you mean by "other sources"?

Other sources include Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS) and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)

42 Reference: L.5.3.1 Assumptions, page 76, states “For each Tab in the Cost

Volume, the Cost Narrative shall identify all assumptions derived by the

Offeror relating to estimated cost and shall reference the applicable paragraph and page number in the Mission Capability Volume (Volume II) of the proposal that provides a corresponding discussion of the particular assumption.” Question: This appears to conflict with instructions L.1.3.10

Volume Designation/Minimum Cross on page 58, which states “Each volume shall be written to the greatest extent possible on a stand‐alone basis, so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross‐ referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.” Will the Government provide an exception to L.1.3.10 for cross‐references to Volume II within

Volume IV?

Language modified in L.5.3.1 to remove reference to Mission Capability Volume as it is the Governments intent for “Each volume shall be written to the greatest extent possible on a stand‐alone basis, so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross‐referencing to other volumes of the proposal."

43 RFP, Section L.5.3.3, In Section L.5.3.3 of the RFP, the description of the

GFE that the government intends to provide to the contractor may be incomplete. Given the amount of information stored on DTRA1 and the frequency of collaboration on the DTRA SharePoint sites within DTRA1, and given that DTRA1 can only be accessed through a DTRA‐provided computer, it seems that all personnel on this contract should be provided with GFE computers. Will the government consider providing government computers to all personnel on this contract?

No. Proposals should only address GFE as specified in the RFP

44 Reference: L.5.4 Cost or Pricing Information, page 78. The Offeror shall provide the information required by FAR provision 52.215‐22 and submit it in Volume IV. Question: Would the USG elaborate on what you would like to see in order to comply with this requirement?

Language modified in L.5.4: In accordance FAR 15.408(n), 52.215‐22 and 52.215‐

23: Excessive Pass‐through Charges– Identification of Subcontract Effort: If the offeror intends to subcontract more than 70% of the total cost of work to be performed: The offeror shall provide the following information in Volume IV:

(i) the amount of the offeror’s indirect costs and profit applicable to the work to be performed by the proposed subcontractor(s); and

(ii) (ii) a description of the added value provided by the offeror as related to the work to be performed by the proposed subcontractor

45 Reference: L.5.4 Cost or Pricing Information and Supporting

Documentation, page 78, states “The cost proposal shall delineate labor hours, labor categories, indirect costs, (to include base and percentage used in calculation), other direct costs, G&A, and fee for both prime and subcontractors. All dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.” Question: This appears to conflict with instructions L.1.3.9 Cost

Information on page 57, which states “All labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.” Would the Government please consider removing the requirement on page 57, as it appears to be more closely associated with a T&M or LH type contract?

The language has been removed from section L.1.3.9 as requested.

46 Reference: Section L.5.4, Cost or Pricing Information and Supporting

Documentation, requires that pricing be submitted at the CLIN level of each of TOs 0001 and 0002. Sections L.3.3.3.3(3) and M.2.4.2.3(3) each contain a “Notional Table” for displaying staffing that references a Work

Breakdown Structure (WBS). Question: Please clarify whether staffing must be presented under a formal WBS, and if so, at what level; and whether pricing must be presented at the same WBS level and summarized at the CLIN level.

Staffing must be presented under a formal WBS at a level specified by the Offeror.

Pricing shall be summarized at the CLIN level.

47 Reference: L.5.4.1 Transition Period, page 79. “The offeror shall NOT provide a separate cost proposal for the Transition Period …The proposal shall delineate labor hours, labor categories, indirect costs (to include base and percentage used in calculation), other direct costs, G&A, and fee.” Question: Since all of this guidance falls under the heading

“Transition Period”, it seems self‐conflicting. Is the Government looking for a separate roll‐up of transition costs within the base period?

That is correct, the transition period is part of the base period

48 Reference: M.2.3, Page 83. “…the mission capability color ratings, performance confidence assessment rating, and evaluated cost will be considered in the order of importance listed in paragraph M.2.2.2”

Question: Paragraph M.2.2.2 does not exist. Could the government please provide this paragraph to confirm the order of importance of the evaluation factors?

It is paragraph M.3.2. This has been corrected and is now reflected in Amendment

49 Reference: M.2.4.1, Management Approach, page 86, bullet 10. The

Offeror demonstrates the ability to meet all security and clearance requirements prior to Task Order execution Question: Will the government please clarify what security and clearance requirements must be met and at what time during the award and transition process?

The Offeror must demonstrate that personnel can be in place, with clearances, and ready to execute upon completion of the transition period, when Task Order

Execution must be at full operational capability.As stated in the SOO, 7.0, "Approximately eighty percent (80%) of all A&AS contractors directly supporting the J2/5/8R Directorate must possess a current DoD TOP SECRET clearance and investigation date, and have SCI elegibility at time of contract award. The remaining 20% must possess a current DOD SECRET clearnce and able to obtain a

TS/SCI." The Offeror shall submit a management approach to accomplish the overall program and contract objectives to include these 2 Key Personnel positions.

50 Reference: M.2.4.1, page 86, 7th bullet states “. . . without necessarily dedicating individuals to each office location on a permanent basis.”

Question: Is the Government referring to locations among the 13 global where there currently is no LNO or ALNO support?

Information on government allocated spaces for contractor personnel has been updated in the SOO (SOO 6.0). The Offeror may propose an innovative approach that provides fewer personnel than the number of currently identified spaces.

51 Reference: M.2.5, page 90. For magnitude, the cost/price per year for each referenced effort will be compared to the total estimated contract ceiling for this effort of $70M. And L.4.3 Task orders issued against IDIQ contracts may be included as references. The base IDIQ shall not be cited as a reference. Question: Given that TOs will likely be used as references by large and small businesses— likely not as relevant to a $70M magnitude than prohibited IDIQ references— could the Government explain how it account for this in determining relevancy and consider adjusting down the comparison amount of $70M?

The government will allow base ID/IQ contracts to be cited as references if the contractor or subcontractor for this effort was the prime contractor for the cited

ID/IQ contract. Sections L and M have been updated to say that for magnitude, the cost/price per year for each referenced effort will be compared to the total estimated contract ceiling.

52 Section 252.245‐9000 (page 44 of 94) Must Offerors submit a completed

Attachment 5 Requisitioned Government‐Furnished Property and

Attachment 6 Scheduled Government‐Furnished Property as part of their proposal submission?

Yes

53 Attachment 4, DD254, block 10k, block 13. Typically, an item listed in 10k will have amplifying instructions/clarification in block 13 of the DD254.

We can find no reference to block 10k in block 13. Block 10k lists

“SIPRNET/JWICS”‐ these are two separate systems with separate requirements and hardware. Please amplify/clarify.

SIPRNET and JWICS are separate systems. They are listed here to indicate that the contractor will need access to these systems. No further amplication or clarification is required.

54 RFP, page 86, At the bottom of RFP pg. 86, the government lists the following requirement: “The Offeror demonstrates the ability to have all overseas personnel in place and ready to execute support prior to Task

Order execution.” This statement seems to be intended to favor the incumbent, as there is no ability for a non‐incumbent to have an entire team of overseas staff in place unless they were already on contract.

Also, the transition period should be intended to allow a non‐incumbent a reasonable amount of time to position staff after contract award. Will the government consider deleting this requirement? If not, will the government clarify how a non‐incumbent can meet the intent of this requirement?

The Offeror must demonstrate that all overseas personnel can be in place and ready to execute upon completion of the transition period, when Task Order

Execution must be at full operational capability.

55 RFP, Section 252.204‐9006, Section 252.204‐9006 of the RFP specifies 15 seats available at the DTRC. This does not seem consistent with the listing of 35 government‐site seats in Section 6.1 of the SOO, including 21 to support SJFHQ‐E. Will the government correct the RFP, or clarify what the number of government‐provided seats should be?

The RFP lists the number of government‐seats for sample TO1 and sample TO2.

The government seats in the SOO are the maximum number of seats anticipated for all task orders that will be issued under this contract. The seating for the

SJFHQ‐E is not included in the 15 seats listed within the RFP as the SJFHQ‐E is no longer a sample task order under this RFP.

56 RFP Para 252.204‐9006 (a) DTRA will allocate 15 work spaces at DTRC.

This number does not add up with the positions identified in the SOO?

Please clarify this discrepancy?

The RFP lists the number of government‐seats for sample TO1 and sample TO2.

The government seats in the SOO is the maximum number of seats anticipated for all task orders that will be issued under this contract. The seating for the SJFHQ‐E is not included in the 15 seats listed within the RFP as the SJFHQ‐E is no longer a sample task order under this RFP.

57 RFP page 20, and SOO page 7 of 9 Please clarify the number of government furnished spaces at all DTRA locations for SOO, STO1, and

STO2.

The SOO and SOWs have been updated to reflect the current plan for government furnished spaces.

58 RFP, Section 252.247‐9000, Page 34, On page 34 of the RFP, Section

252.247‐9000 explicitly states that the application of the Joint Travel

Regulation (JTR) to contract or personnel is not allowed, and is, in fact, illegal. At the bottom of pg. 5 of the SOW for TO#0001 (J50), however, the text states that “all travel shall be in accordance with the Joint Travel

Regulation.” There is a similar statement on pg. 6 of the SOW for

TO#0002 (J51). The requirement for contractor use of the JTR in the J50

SOW is not in conformity with the FAR. Will the government delete the statements about the use of the JTR in the two SOWs to reflect the requirements of the FAR?

The language has been removed from the SOWs to be consistant with DTRA clause 252.247‐9000

59 RFP page 96 SJFHQ‐E is listed as STO2 title. We believe this is a typo.

Please confirm

Correct, J51 is the Sample Task Order for this procurement ‐ The SOO has been updated.

60 SOO, Sec 6.0, Place of Performance, Table of on‐site work space shows 13 global locations for the J51’s Regional Engagement and Plans Division, and none for the Synchronization and Functional Plans Division. Please clarify the accuracy of global locations for the J51 contractor staff. It is assumed that the Synchronization and Functional Plans Division includes contractor support for the Functional CCMDs (SOCOM, STRATCOM, and

TRANSCOM), requiring at least three (3) spaces in those respective command headquarters. As depicted in the Place of Performance table, the division has no global locations specified.

The SOO and SOWs have been updated to reflect the current plan for government furnished spaces.

61 SOO 1.0 (page 2 of 9), Draft SJFHQ‐E Sample Task Order # 2. The LOE

(SOO 6.1 page 7 of 9) for SJFHQ‐E remains 21 FTE’s, how will the offeror be evaluated on that requirement? Does the government still intend for these 21 FTE’s to perform work for SJFHA‐E and if so, how will the offeror be evaluated on that requirement?

This requirement will be evaluated in the overall technical approach for the contract

62 SOO 4.1 (page 7), Provide integrated advice and assistance strategic and operational level support across the J2/5/8R Directorate by providing

SME advice and assistance in the systems engineering planning, strategic, operational and tactical level planning and execution, identification and implementation of strategy management "Best Practices", program management, international relations, policy integration and regional expertise applicable to each geographic combatant command in support of all 9 DoD CWMD mission areas as detailed in the National Military

Strategy for CWMD. Will the offeror be evaluated against the response for support to the 9 DoD CWMD mission areas as detailed in the National

Military Strategy for CWMD dated Feb 2006 or the current Department of

Defense Strategy for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (DoDS‐

CWMD), dated June 2014, and Joint Pub 3‐40, Countering Weapons of

Mass Destruction, dated 31 October 2014.

As stated in the SOO, "in support of all 9 DoD CWMD mission areas as detailed in the National Military Strategy for CWMD." The National Military Strategy for

CWMD as published in February 2006.

63 SOO: para 1.0 : What are the 3 Lines of Effort that support the Strategic

Enabler? Please clarify and/or reword this para it is unclear?

The three lines of effort are identified in the previous sentence, 1. "prevent acquistion," 2. "contain and reduce threats," and 3. "repond to crisis operations."

64 SOO: Para 1.0 last line: 7 organizations; however, there are only 6 organizations listed. Can a more descriptive para be given to be able to support TID mission if that is included?

There are only 6 organizations, the SOO has been updated to reflect that. While support to J‐2 Threat Intelligence Division may be included in the Front Office

SOW, we do not have any more detailed information on what that might be at this time.

65 SOO: Para 1, J50‐ Is the Inter‐Agency missions still in J50 as briefed at

Industry Day or is it embedded in J51? How will it be evlauted as part of

J51 or J50?

The organizational Interagency efforts have been moved from J50 to J51, the SOO and SOWs have been updated to reflect that change.

66 SOO: Para 2. SJFHQ‐E is no longer the Sample Task Order as listed here, correct?

Correct, J51 is the Sample Task Order for this procurement. The SOO has been updated.

67 SOO: Para 4.1 states "All 9 DoD CWMD mission areas as detailed in the

NMS for CWMD"? Is 9 correct number or are you referring to the 8

CWMD Mission Areas?

Correction, 8 mission areas. The SOO has been updated to reflect this correction.

68 SOO: Para 4.4 states "(To include licensed "Balanced

Scorecard/Performance Dashboard" strategy management and implementation data visualization and management system". Please explain"licensed" is it DTRA's license or the incumbent's license? What is the name of the software/provider to be able to ensure competitive staffing plan can account for training on this specific licensed system.

DTRA has a license issued by ESM Software Group. DTRA will maintain this license and will be responsible for maintenance and upgrading under a separate contract.

Offeror will be expected to acquire and maintain sufficient familiarity with the

ESM Tool to insure accurate and continued input of reliable data by users of the

Tool.

69 SOO: Para 4.9 Identifies ELBI program and ELBI steering committee but gives no further information, including no acronym/description of this requirement. Can you please clarify or provide more information on this requirement?

ELBI refers to the Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Forum. This program is an outreach to develop and inform the next generation of biodefense professionals

(US–UK– Canada). DTRA hosts two yearly conferences – one in the US, and one overseas. The SSO has been updated with this information.

70 SOO: Para 4.11 requires orderly transition from the incumbent and states

"information maintained in the incumbent's information and document management system" What system is the incumbent using so we can ensure orderly transition?

The incumbent's information and document management system is commercial off the shelf (COTS) the information is stored in standard commericial software documents and databases. The Offerors should propose tasks and schedule they think may be required to gather the information from the incumbent using standard IT practices

71 Section 3.5, Place of Performance/Travel/Training/GFE‐P, SOW, Sample

TO #2, The listing of locations for government furnished space includes one and two asterisks next to some locations. Please clarify what the asterisks pertain to in the listing of government furnished space.

There is no meaning behind the astericks" (*'s) in the document. They have been deleted.

72 Reference: Task Order 0002 SOW, pages 3, 4 and 7. Last paragraph on

Page 3, “*Additional Requirements . . .” Page 4 text “**Designated ALNO positions in locations with no DTRA/SCC‐WMD government personnel currently assigned.” Question: Do these asterisks pertain to the listed items 1 through 8 and the last item (The Pentagon, Washington, DC) on page 7?

There is no meaning behind the astericks" (*'s) in the document. They have been deleted.

73 Reference: Task Order 0002 SOW, page 7, Section 6.1, table showing spaces, location, and associated division. Question: In reference to the 13 global locations, would the Government please identify the 13 locations?

The SOO and SOWs have been updated to reflect the current plan for government furnished spaces.

74 Reference: Draft RFP and Q&A. Not all of the responses to questions on the draft RFP were incorporated into the Final RFP. Question: Is the Final

RFP meant to be a stand‐alone document that supersedes all earlier communications, or are the responses to earlier questions meant to be valid and binding guidance?

The Final RFP is meant to be a stand‐alone document that supersedes all earlier communications.