HDTRA1-18-R-0045_-_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

HDTRA1-18-R-0045 Draft RFP Questions and Responses – Questions Related to RFP Section B – CLINs (Supplies/Services)

# DRFP

Reference

Question Gov’t Response

1 Draft_RFP_HDT

RA1-18-R-

0045; Section B

Will the Government please define and spell out the acronyms for "PDW Funding only", "R&D Funding only", and "CTR funding only?"

PDW =Procurement, Defense Wide:

Procurement appropriations are used to finance investment items and should cover all costs necessary to deliver a useful end item intended for operational use or inventory. Items classified as investments and financed with Procurement appropriations include those whose system unit cost exceeds $250K; all centrally managed end items not purchased from Defense Working Capital Funds, regardless of unit cost (e.g., handguns); purchases from the Defense Working Capital Fund furnished as part of a system acquisition, system modification, major service life extension program and initial spares.

With certain limited exceptions, the cost of fabricating and installing additions or modifications to existing end items is also funded with procurement appropriations.

CTR = Cooperative Threat Reduction.

The CTR appropriation is unique to DTRA. You can find the authority under 50 USC Chapter 48: DoD Cooperative Threat Reduction, R&D = Research Development Test and Evaluation (RDT&E): RDT&E is one of the five major appropriations used by the Department of Defense. RDT&E finances research, development, test and evaluation efforts performed by both contractors and government installations in the developing equipment, material, or computer application software. This includes services (including government civilian salaries), equipment, components, materials, end items and weapons used in such efforts.

Terms represent specific funding types based on appropriations that are allocated to the DTRA mission and support.

2 Draft_RFP_HDT

RA1-18-R-

0045; Section B

The CLIN descriptions include designations for "O&M Funding", "PDW Funding", "R&D Funding", and CTR Funding" with a combination of CPFF and CPAF CLIN types across the 13 CLINS. It is not clear how the CLIN structure aligns to the individual task orders, SOO, and cost tables.

There are no crosswalks on how the technical requirements or pricing on the cost tables are distributed across these CLINS.

Please clarify how Offerors should apportion the total costs reflected in the cost workbook to Section B.

The CLINs align with the performance objectives in the IDIQ SOO and to the Task Orders where SOO paragraph 4.1.2 and TO 1 aligns with CLINs 0001 - 0012;

SOO Para 4.1.3 and TO 2 align with CLINs 0013 - 0024;

SOO Para 4.1.1 and future TOs align with CLINs 0025 - 0036;

SOO Para 4.1.4 aligns with CLINS 0037 –

Then we have CLINs for ODC, Travel, and start up with the Option CLINs and the structure repeats.

HDTRA1-18-R-0045 Draft RFP Questions and Responses – Questions Related to RFP Section H – Special Contract Requirements

# DRFP

Reference

Question Gov’t Response

3 DRAFT RFP;

Page 84, para h.1

Please confirm Task Lead/Project Manager is considered KP?

Yes, the task order Lead / Project Manager is a required Key Personnel (see RFP L.3.3.2.2, L.3.3.2.3, and M.2.2.3). Also see M.2.1.2 where it states, "Key Personnel positions proposed, including the required Task Order Lead position, will be evaluated…".

The Offeror is free to proposal additional Key Personnel , as necessary, consistent with their management approach.

HDTRA1-18-R-0045 Draft RFP Questions and Responses – Questions Related to RFP Section J – List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

# DRFP

Reference

Question Gov’t Response

Attachment 1 - SOO 4 Attachment 1 -

Draft SOO;

Section 2.4;

Can DTRA confirm scope requirements include adherence to Intelligence Community (IC) Directives (ICD) for TS (and higher) enclaves/data in addition to stated DoD policies and industry best practices?

As a DoD component, we will comply with all DoD requirements as it relates to TS and higher enclaves/data.

5 Attachment 1 - Draft SOO;

Section 3; Page

Can DTRA both confirm applicable documents include more than the ten items listed (3.1 - 3.10), and whether the agency specific references will be available in a reading room?

Section 3 of the Draft SOO includes the initial list of applicable documents.

However, the government remains open to any recommendations until the RFP is released in final form.

Agency specific references will be included in a Supplemental attachment to the final RFP

6 Attachment 1 - Draft SOO;

Section 4.1.1;

Will the government please specify any required vendor specific commercial off the shelf software, open source technologies, security HW or SW, or cloud vendor "expertise and experience required to encompass all elements relevant to technology service delivery in design and development of systems, software, security or cloud solutions to approved IT service requests"? If so, please specify at the function or Task Order level by identifying ".

In Task Order 2 "Knowledge Management" DTRA is currently using MS SharePoint and MicroStrategy as primary tools.

Proficiency in these tools is a minimum requirement. However, vendors are encouraged to have a vision of knowledge management and how they can provide enhanced capabilities.

7 Attachment 1 - Draft SOO;

Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2; Page

Can DTRA clarify the distinction of test support services required between 4.1.1 "... shall include rigorous systems testing to include appropriate test planning, execution, and documentation of test results."

and 4.1.2 "... shall support, as necessary, comprehensive systems level testing and independent verification and validation (IV&V)."?

The nature of the testing support services is similar, however it's the scope of the activity the test is supporting that is the primary distinction. SOO 4.1.1 is defining the testing that will be included as part of an integrated IT capability design solution like you might see in TO 3 (Atch 4), whereas, the testing in SOO 4.1.2 is for tesing support from a sustaining engineering type activity like you would see in task orders similar to TO 1 (Atch 2). Also, note SOO 4.1.2 includes IV&V which would not be included in a developer's task order (like TO 3).

8 Attachment 1 - Draft SOO;

Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.3; Page

Can DTRA clarify whether they currently have artificial intelligence and/or machine learning services in support of their Knowledge Management program?

Further, will the government please specify any required vendor specific commercial off the shelf software, open source technologies as referenced by "...Knowledge Management systems solutions, enhanced collaboration tools, artificial intelligence, machine learning, data discovery, analytics, visualization, and sharing".

DTRA does not have artificial intelligence and/or machine learning in place at the time but these capabilities are on the KM initiatives to research and plan a way forward in FY19. Currently the KM tools being used on UNCLASS and SECRET networks are SharePoint, Microstrategy, Microsoft OneNote and other widely available DoD collaboration tools.

9 Attachment 1 - Draft SOO;

Section 5; Page

Can DTRA clarify how identified efficiencies and innovations in "IT service transition, integration, [and] operations", which are believed to be outside the scope of this IDIQ/TO's, would be recommended and executed?

First, recognize the context of the phrased that is the subject of this question. Section 5 is simply trying to highlight the constraints associated with this SOO (essentially security, the evolving IT environment, and impact of cloud migration). The overall scope of IT service design/solutioning in this SOO is, by design, very broad and intended to cover most conceivable IT capabilities and requirements that are validated by the existing DTRA IT governance processes.

10 Attachment 1 - Draft SOO;

Section 6.1;

Pages 4-5

Can DTRA provide additional clarification of "the implementation of the cloud infrastructure, …" and how it relates to "… opportunities for a more dispersed workforce."?

Section 6.1 sets the baseline expectation that most of the anticipated work will be performed on-site at DTRA Ft Belvoir but recognizes that as the more systems and capabilities migrate to the cloud, there may be increased opportunities for DTRA employees and supporting contractors to perform their work off-site.

11 Attachment 1 - Draft SOO;

Section 9;

Pages 5-6

Can DTRA confirm whether security clearance information held in either JPAS or Scattered Castles will be acceptable to perform work?

JPAS

Attachment 2 - TO 1 Engineering Support

12 PWS TO-1,

Section 3.4;

Section 3.4 mentions a DTRA SDLC. Would the government please provide the Agency standard SDLC document?

See revised TO 1 PWS. SDLC is intended to review generically to the industry standard SDLC model. Vendors are encouraged to define their process relative to SDLC in their proposals.

13 Attachment 2 - Draft PWS TO 1; Section 3.4;

Pursuant to the statement "..., consistent with the DTRA SDLC, ..." will DTRA provide or clarify the specific SDLC workflow, phases, processes, or methodologies currently used within I2TS to provide service design solutions to both agency directorates and DTRA mission partners?

See revised TO 1 PWS. SDLC is intended to review generically to the industry standard SDLC model. Vendors are encouraged to define their process relative to SDLC in their proposals.

14 PWS TO-1;

PWS TO-2;

Attachment 12

For Task Order pricing purposes, what date should the contractor plan for the start of each task order?

The initial task orders are intended to be awarded quickly after the IDIQ contract awards are announced. As such, for consistent TO pricing, assume award of the individual task orders on March 4, 2019.

15 PWS TO-1;

PWS TO-2;

Attachment 12

The subtasks on task orders may be currently performed as part of existing contracts with different end dates. Please provide start date information or guidance for purposes of Task Order pricing.

The initial task orders are intended to be awarded quickly after the IDIQ contract awards are announced. As such, for consistent TO pricing, assume award of the individual task orders on March 4, 2019.

16 Attachment 2 - Draft PWS TO 1; Section 1.2;

Will DTRA validate that the historic 15 FTE support metric is indicative of level-of-effort (LOE) anticipated support requirements listed within TO1 at present time?

This information is provided, not as a specific staffing level requirement, but to assist in defining the scale and reach of this technical requirement.

17 Attachment 2 - Draft PWS TO 1; Section 4.1 -

CDRL A002;

Will DTRA confirm Delivery Timing "Initial delivered with proposal" is not referencing the TO1 proposal submission but rather a COR/PM requested project proposal during TO execution?

"See revised working in the final TO 1

PWS.

18 Attachment 1 - Draft SOO;

Section 4.2;

And Attachment 2 - Draft PWS TO 1; Section 4.1;

Attachment 1 states "contractor shall support regular (at least quarterly; monthly if called by PM) program and progress reviews as called by the government COR/PM". Within Attachment 2 - TO1, would DTRA clarify what CDRL will encompass quarterly or monthly program progress reviews?

The government has not established a CDRL for these recurring progress reviews. The intent is for the DTRA COR and the TO 1 Contractor to work together, post award, to establish the frequency and content of these recurring reviews.

19 Attachment 2 - Draft PWS TO 1; Section 3.3;

Pursuant to the statement "...

consistent with the DTRA Enterprise Architecture ..." will DTRA provide or clarify the components of the current DTRA Enterprise Architecture to enable bidders to deliver a technical approach that is aligned to the logic and reasoning of said Enterprise Architecture?

Notice this reference relates to performance measures for this task.

The DTRA EA or IT Roadmap will be provided upon task order award.

20 Attachment 1 -

DRAFT PWS TO

1; Section 1.1.2

Can DTRA please define the IV&V activities expected from the contractor that will differ, if at all, for solutions proposed by the contractor that are required to go through an IV&V assessment?

The TO 1 PWS has no Section 1.1.2.

IV&V is only mentioned in TO 1 at the very end of 1.2 where it states, "In support of the service design process, the Contractor shall support, as necessary, comprehensive systems level testing and independent verification and validation (IV&V)."

See revised para 3.6 in TO 1 in the final

RFP.

21 Attachment 2 - Draft PWS TO 1; Section 3.2, Will the government provide any metrics on the number per month or complexity of investigations referenced by "...

provide initial feasibility studies and/or demonstrations of recommend actions (CDRL A003)."

The PWS in section 1.2 includes a historical FTE level. Historically DTRA has managed the numbers of investigations within the available talent pool.

22 PWS TO 1;

Page 2, Para 2

Please provide digital copies of all “Applicable Documents” on FedBizOps. Specifically:

2.1. DoD Directive 5200.01;

Information Security Program,

2.2. DTRA Directive 5200.1R;

DTRA Information Security Program,

2.3. DoD Instruction 8510.01;

Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT)

2.4. DoD Instruction 8500.2;

Information Assurance Implementation Document

2.5. DTRA Strategic Plan, 2016 -

2.6. DTRA J6, CIO Information

Operations Strategic Plan 2017 –

2.7. DTRA Cloud Strategy

2.8. DTRA Knowledge

Management Strategy, March 4, The government will include all the DTRA specific reference documents in the Supplemental Information Package with the Final RFP. All DOD references are avaiable in the public domain.

23 PWS TO 1;

General Question

Given the significant changes in the scope of this contract, strongly recommend DTRA host another Industry Day focused solely on the Multiple Award IDIQ and the interaction between the SBSA and Cloud CMO to support effective proposal response.

The government did consider an industry day but elected to gauge from the amount and nature of responses from the DRFP if an Industry Day was necessary.

Based on the nature of the questions it isn't clear that an industry day is necessary at this time.

24 PWS TO 1,

General Question

Request for clarification. TO2 includes support to coalition partners; TOs 1 and 3 do not. Is this intentional and can you identify what support to coalition partners for TOs 1 and 3.

TO 1 does mention coalition partners in the general Performance Requirements summary paragragh at 3.0. All three task order and the SOO include a statement similar to, "Continuous IT support must meet the needs of the Agency and other internally and externally supported customers ...".

There was no intentional decision to include or not include specific references to "coalition partners" in any of the TOs or the SOO. The primary intent is to define that scope of the IT design solutions support efforts to include all DTRA stakeholders who use or influence the requirements of IT as a mission support capability of the DTRA mission.

25 Attachment 2 –

PWS TO1

Solution Engineering and Test Support; Page 3, Para 3.4

Can the government provide a number of proof of concepts the government anticipates per month? And can they provide a sample level of complexity of the POCs? Are there any requirements on the timing and delivery of these activities?

The PWS in section 1.2 includes a historical FTE level. Historically DTRA has managed the numbers of proofs of concept within the available talent pool.

26 Attachment 2 –

PWS TO1

Solution Engineering and Test Support; Page 3, Para 3.5

Will the government provide plug numbers for hardware/software/licensing cost or will they provide numbers and types of devices that will be purchased per month?

See the revised Attachment 12 Pricing Template where plug numbers for all ODCs are provided.

Attachment 3 - TO 2 PWS - Knowledge Management

27 PWS TO 2,

General Question

Are the JIDO intelligence requirements, specifically its Title 50 authority (collection), included in the overall requirements, or is it expected that the contractor will develop and implement separate systems and capabilities to handle JIDO-specific (Title 50/collection) separately?

At this time the JIDO Title 50 authority is not included in this overall requirement.

28 PWS TO 2;

General Question

Will all JIDO support occur at the DTRC, or will remote support be required for JIDO elements not housed in the DTRC? If so, is there a timeline for physical integration?

Any JIDO specific support will be the subject of a specific task order and on vs off-site support will be addressed in this specific task order.

29 Attachment 3 -

PWS TO 2

Knowledge Management;

General Question

What if any information or detail can you provide about the expectations for timing from ingestion to presentation in the

KMS?

Timelines would need to be negotiated as part of the project plan based on the type of data and the data requirements.

30 "Attachment 3

- DRAFT PWS

TO 2; Section 1.2; Page 2

Can DTRA please provide the full suite of services and tools that will be expected to have continued support at the start of the transition period?

The performance requirements are defined in section 3 of the PWS, and the primary tools are identified in paragraph 3.3.

31 Attachment 3 -

PWS TO 2

Knowledge Management;

Page 1-2; Para 1.2

Can you provide any details with regard to the level of current report and development support frequency to evaluate against the current requirements?

Current reporting and development support is needed on a daily basis.

Several reports are updated daily based on data refresh cycles.

32 PWS TO 2;

Page 3, Para 3.1.1

Request for clarification: Here and throughout the PWS the terms CWMD and/or WMD are used to describe the scope of the “threat”. With the inclusion of the JIDO mission (improvised threats/devices, explosives, and UAS), does the term CWMD/WMD apply specifically to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear threats, or does it also include improvised threats/devices, explosives, and

UAS?

In the SOO and the individual task order PWSs we have used the term CWMD (countering weapons of mass destruction) to refer to the principle mission focus of DTRA. Inasmuch as the DTRA mission includes improvised threats and most recently UAS, the scope is intended to include these elements of the JIDO mission as well.

33 PWS TO-2,

Section 3.2;

Bottom of Page 3- Top of Page

Section 3.2 says, "To the maximum extent possible the contractors shall adapt or develop out-of-the-box collaborations solutions to support evolving mission requirements, provide recommendations on data integration across tools to accelerate rapid decision making, Yes, the theme and intent is that IT solutions avoid, as much as possible, new development of unique design, when available solutions can be adapted to minimize development effort, reduce integration and compatibility risks, and reduce O&M costs once the solution is deployed.

and develop custom collaborative tools when necessary to meet unique DTRA requirements."

Would open source solutions be considered "out-of-the-box collaborations solutions" to effectively meet DTRA requirements?

34 Attachment 3 - Draft PWS TO 2; Section 3.3;

Page 5 and Section 3.2;

“Based on PRS 3.3, and current Gartner February 2018 report, MicroStrategy is cited to have limitations, including “limited traction beyond the user base” as well as “Gaps in cloud and Augmented analytics."

Will the government consider removing this vendor specific technology requirement to allow for other visionary technologies to be proposed over the course of this 10-year contract?

The current DTRA KM dashboards rely on the MicroStrategy BI Dashboards and Analysis tool suite. This is the "as is" system that must be maintained even if over the life of the IDIQ the government finds it necessary and appropriate to transition to or integrate other technologies. As such, the day one support of this task order will require the contractor to have properly certified MicroStrategy Certified Global Partners and MicroStrategy Certified Developers.

35 Attachment 3 –

PWS TO2

Knowledge Management;

Page 4, Para 3.3

Does DTRA currently have a Knowledge Management tool, if yes, can the government provide the tool name? What collaboration tool is in use?

Currently the KM tools being used on UNCLASS and SECRET networks are SharePoint, Microstrategy, Microsoft OneNote and other widely available DoD collaboration tools.

36 Attachment_3_ Sample_PWS_T O_2_- _Knowledge_M gmt, Section 3.4 "Performance Requirement #4, Knowledge Management Support Services - Records Management Requirement," page #5, middle of the page

Are there any technical requirements that NARA has mandated to enable sharing of data with the National Archives?

Can the Government describe the current network tool(s) being used today by the National Archives for data storage?

The current NARA requirement is to automate Records Management files into an electronic format to be determined by each Agency. The NARA tool for transferring records to the Federal Records Centers is ARCIS.

37 PWS TO 2;

Page 5, Para 3.4

Paragraph 3.4 indicates that the contractor is responsible for “conducting annual staff assistance visits”. Please provide additional information on the nature and scope of the activities associated with the visits. Also, is it expected that the contractor will conduct these alone, or will there be a government team?

There will be a government lead on all Site Assistance Visits (SAVs). The SAVs are conducted annually to ensure that DTRA offices are in compliance with NARA Guidance and DTRA Instruction

5015.02. Findings and gaps will be

documented and the Records Program Office (government) will provide guidance for corrective actions.

Attachment 4 - TO 3 - Sample Task - GCC Collaborative Tool

38 Attachment_4_ Sample_PWS_T O_3_- _GCC_Collabor aton_Tool, Section 3.2 "Performance Requirement #2, Develop and Deliver IT Solutions," Page #3, middle of the page

In section 3.2, would the Government prefer a single tool to accomplish this task or can the contractor recommend a set of tools in a managed environment to allow for multiple modes of communications (i.e. voice, video, files, objects)?

The Offeror is encouraged to propose a technical solution they believe offers the best value to the government. In this case the government has no predetermined best solution and will consider a single or a suite of tools.

39 Attachment_4_ Sample_PWS_T O_3_- _GCC_Collabor aton_Tool

Within this Sample PWS, there is no mention of Information Assurance/Cybersecurity for the collaboration tool. Will this be performed by another contract/contractor? Or will the provider of this tool and/or managed service have to provide ongoing Information Assurance/Cybersecurity functions?

The intent is for the solution to represent a fully integrated and operational solution. As such, all IA requirements necessary to allow full operational integration would need to be included in a complete proposed solution.

Attachment 12 - Cost Proposal Spreadsheet

40 Attachment_12 _Draft_Pricing_ Template;

Labor Categories Tab

For consistency of labor categories across proposals provided by different offerors, will the Government please provide Labor Categories in Column A of the Labor Category tab?

Yes, see revised Atch 12 in final RFP.

41 Attachment_12 _Draft_Pricing_ Template

Will the customer accept additional "Labor Categories" tabs for each subcontractor?

The Government will provide a list of anticipated labor categories and encourage Offeror to align their proposed labor categories with the government's list for consistency.

However, the Government recognizes there may be cases where such alignment isn't possible. In these cases, the offeror is free to add a unique labor category to support their pricing.

42 Attachment_12 _Draft_Pricing_ Template; Task Order 1 Tab and Task Order 2 Tab

The Task Order 1 and 2 tabs of the pricing template designate rows for the application of overhead to Other Direct Costs and subcontractor costs. Would the Government please add a place for G&A to be applied to ODCs and subcontractor costs instead of overhead?

See revised pricing template in final RFP

43 Draft RFP;

General Question

Should pricing for tools identified in offeror’s proposal be included in the bid as an ODC, or should offerors assume the government will provide all necessary tools?

If the cost of the tool is integral to the proposed solution, yes it should be included in the proposed price.

However, if the tool is an existing tool already in use by DTRA, use of that tool will be available to the awarded contractor without cost. If there are specific tools the offeror intends to propose, a specific question should be presented to the KO in response to the final RFP.

44 Pricing Template; Para 3; General Tab

The Pricing Template indicates that: "Offerors are only to propose pricing for Task Orders 1 and 2 during the IDIQ Base Period. Specific task order pricing within the IDIQ Base Period will include task order pricing for the task order base period plus any task order option periods defined in the task order Performance Work Statements (PWS). Can you clarify whether all base and option years should be populated with cost or only the base period?”

See revised Pricing Template in the Final RFP. TO pricing will align with the period of performance indicated in the TO PWS (to include base period and all planned option periods)

HDTRA1-18-R-0045 Draft RFP Questions and Responses – Questions Related to RFP Section L – Instructions

# DRFP

Reference

Question Gov’t Response

45 Draft RFP Solicitation, Section L.1.1.2;

"Below the table, it is stated that ""all offerors must acknowledge each amendment by signing the

While not anticipated, if there are multiple amendments, signing the individual SF30 to acknowledge will ensure you are aware of all amendments in your submission.

46 Draft_RFP_HDT

RA1-18-R-

0045; L.1.2;

Page 119- page limit table

Would the Government consider increasing the page count for the Management section to 20 pages instead of 15?

See revised RFP

47 Draft RFP;

General Question

Would the government consider exempting transition plan from page count?

Would the government consider expanding the page count given the amount of scope covered within Factor 1?

See revised RFP; Transition Plan will be included in the page count for Sub- Factor B and C but the total allowable pages has been adjusted.

48 Draft_RFP_HDT

RA1-18-R-

0045; L.1.2 table; Page 119

The table on page 119 of the Draft RFP specifies a "3 pages combined" limit for the key personnel resume and commitment statement. Can the Government please confirm that this 3 page limit is per key personnel?

yes, the government's intention is to limit the offerors to 3 pages (combined resume and commitment letter) per individual identified as Key Personnel.

49 Draft RFP Solicitation;

L.1.2

PROPOSAL

ORGANIZATIO

N; Page 119

Will the government clarify the "Key Personnel Resume / Commitment Statement - 3 pages combined " is 3 pages per EACH person proposed as key?

yes, the government's intention is to limit the offerors to 3 pages (combined resume and commitment letter) per individual identified as Key Personnel.

50 Draft RFP Solicitation, Section L.2.10;

In acknowledging that the Offeror has ensured that all representations, certifications, acknowledgements, and statements provided are current at the time of proposal submittal, will a statement to that effect and statements provided are current at the time of proposal submittal, will a statement to

Section L.2.10 requires no specific input in the proposal submission, however, the Offeror is responsible to ensure their information in SAM is current and accurate as of date of proposal submission.

that effect in the proposal be sufficient, or will the Offeror be required to submit the full text of Clause 52.204-8 (approximately 4 pages) and check "Paragraph (d) applies) under Section (b)(2)?

If just a statement will suffice, where shall it be placed?

51 DRAFT RFP,

Section L.2.6, 2nd paragraph

Are Consent letters and teaming arrangements included in page count?

All the subparagraphs in L.2 are intended to be included in the Vol 1 ID/IQ PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION of the proposal which is defined as "no limit" in the table at L.1.2. under the "Pages" column.

52 Draft_RFP_HDT

RA1-18-R-

0045; Section L.2.6; Page 121

Could the Government please clarify what they're asking for with this requirement: "In addition, the Offeror shall submit a consent letter or statement, executed by each Subcontractor, teaming partner, and/ or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror, so the offeror can respond to such information"? Is this consent to release adverse past performance information should any arise during contract execution?

Yes, for past history of adverse performance.

53 Draft_RFP_HDT

RA1-18-R-

0045; Section L.2.6; Page 122, middle of the page

Section L.2.6 is called “Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Commitment” but the text in that section only asks for a capability’s matrix and subcontractor consent letters for release of adverse past performance information (not TAs or letters of commitment.) Can the Government please confirm that offerrors do not need to provide TAs or letters of commitment in their proposal submission?

Letters of Commitments and Teaming arrangements are required to be included in the Vol 1 of the proposal.

H3 para. c. Notwithstanding the above teaming arrangement and issues relating to consent, all teaming arrangements (subcontract) pricing must be supported in accordance with FAR 15.404-3. Subcontract cost and pricing data, as appropriate, should be present in task order proposals.

54 Draft_RFP_HDT

0045; Section L.3.3.2- first sentence; Page

Section L.3.3.2 mentions "This non-rated factor includes rated Sub-factors that cover the full technical scope and management evaluation areas for the IDIQ and the initial two awardable task orders (TOs) and the three sample task orders." However, there is only one PWS Attachment (Attachment 4) named sample PWS TO 3. Does the Government intend to provide two more sample Performance Work Statements with the Final RFP release?

This is a draft RFP. The government's intention is to include up to three sample tasks in the final RFP. One intent of the sample tasks is to provide examples of representative new work that is within the scope of the IDIQ and could be added as a task order during the life of the IDIQ.

Draft RFP;

L.3.3.2 FACTOR

1—MISSION

CAPABILITY

Please explain what the term “non-rated” means. Does it mean not evaluated?

Factor 1 is not specifically rated with a color score. The color scores are assigned at the sub-factor level identified within Factor 1. Please see more details regarding evaluation plans in Section M.

56 Draft RFP; Section L.4.5; Page 129

Will DTRA clarify whether individual "roadmap[s]" are required for both prime and each subcontractor teammate if they have not had an organizational change (merger / acquisition) in the past five years?

yes, roadmaps are required for the prime and all teaming or subcontractors identified in the Team Arrangements or Letters of Commitments (see also Section H.3.

57 Draft_RFP_HDT

RA1-18-R-

0045; Section L.5.3.4.3; Page

The current wording of Section L.5.3.4.3 limits competition by making any offeror who does not have a Provisional Billing Rate Approval Letter, Final Billing Rate Approval Letter or DCAA/DCMA Forward Pricing Rate Agreement/ Recommendation letter non-compliant.

Will the Government please revise the wording of Section L.5.3.4.3 Accounting System to the following:

The Offeror shall provide the following Accounting System information:

- Completed Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist, See revised RFP; there is no intent to limit competition, however, there is a specific requirement for a contractor to be able to support all likely contract types, included Cost Reimbursable contracts.

Attachment 7

- DCAA point of contact with a current e-mail address or phone number.

- DCAA Provisional Billing Rate Approval Letter (if applicable).

- DCAA Final Billing Rate Approval Letter (if applicable).

- DCAA/ DCMA approved Forward Pricing Rate Agreement/ Recommendation (if applicable).

- DCAA audit and findings that the Contractor's accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to cost-reimbursable awards; or,

- Certification from an independent CPA that accounting system complies with DCAA requirements.

58 Draft RFP and Section L.4.4 Past Performance Summaries

With reference to the Draft RFP and Section L.4.4 Past Performance Summaries – can you elaborate on how this factor will figure into the overall contractor evaluation. We are very concerned that anything less than a yes across the board will be a negative in terms of evaluation – and in all likelihood, experience in many of the domains listed can only come from working with DTRA previously.

see Section M.2.3 where it reads, "Using this Matrix, the government will consider most relevant those Offerors who provide credible evidence of organic technical experience (ie, experience of the Prime contractor) in each of the technology domains reflected in the matrix, as indicated by “Yes” scores in each domain. All Offeror assigned scores in the matrix are subject to independent verification by the government evaluators."

Per the above, offerors' who provide examples of experience with "yes" will be more favorably considered but all experience will be considered in aggregate to assess experience across the technology domains.

59 Draft RFP and Section L.4.4 Past Performance Summaries

Will a teaming partners experience in a particular domain (Yes w/teaming), be rated less than that of a Yes from the prime?

See previous answer. Yes, but all experience within a technology domain will be considered.

60 Draft_RFP_HDT

0045; L.5.4;

page 132, last sentence before L.5.5

L.5.4 states, "If Subcontractor(s) are utilized, the Offeror shall provide the results of the analysis conducted by the Offeror establishing reasonableness of proposed subcontractor prices (reference FAR 15.404-3 (b) and (c))." Is a labor rate price analysis of subcontractor’s rates sufficient evidence of reasonableness?

All subcontractor proposed costs should be analyzed by the prime for cost realism and reasonableness.

61 Draft RFP Solicitation;

L.2.12 SOCIO-

ECONOMIC

COMMITMENT

; Page 123

Will the government clarify the requirement to comply with "25% Small Business and 10% SDVOSB requirements." as it relates to IDIQ and Task Order proposals given more than one prime contractor may win the initial (and future) Task orders?

Small business goals will be measured at the individual IDIQ. Each IDIQ contract holder will manage their collective task orders to ensure these goals are meet when calculated at the end of the IDIQ base and again at the end of the Option periods.

62 Draft RFP Solicitation, Section L.1.1.2;

The questions being submitted are for this Draft RFP. Will there be an opportunity for questions on the Final RFP?

Most likely, yes.

63 Draft RFP Solicitation Block 9; Page 1 And Draft RFP Solicitation, Section L

Will the government provide the acquisition timeline for Final RFP release, submissions due and award date?

Subject to change but for planning purposes, the final RFP is scheduled to be release on/about 8/17, and the proposal submission will be due on/about 10/17

HDTRA1-18-R-0045 Draft RFP Questions and Responses – Questions Related to RFP Section M – Evaluation Factors

# DRFP

Reference

Question Gov’t Response

64 Draft_RFP_HDT

RA1-18-R-

0045; M.2.3 Factor 2: Past Performance;

Middle of Page

Will the Government modify this section to indicate that when contractors don’t have a contract of comparable scale they can briefly discuss how they would scale to meet a task of this magnitude?

As written the evaluation factor places no restriction or specific definition on magnitude. The offeror is free to include any appropriate narrative to explain or define how a proposed past performance example is relevant or scalable to the magnitude of the anticipated scope of work in this RFP.

The government does not intend to modify this evaluation criteria.

65 Draft_RFP_HDT

RA1-18-R-

0045; Section M.2.4; Page 143- "Task Order Awards" Paragraph

Under Task Order Awards, this section states, "The Government intends to award Task Orders 1 and 2 (only) to one or two "Best of Breed" awardees under the MAC ID/IQ." Would the Government consider multiple awardees for a single task order if the combination of multiple offerors' capabilities is determined to provide the best value to the Government for that single task order?

See revised language in final RFP.

No, the government will make a single award determination for each task order.

66 Draft_RFP_HDT

RA1-18-R-

0045; Section M.2.4; Page 143- "Task Order Awards" Paragraph

Under Task Order Awards, this section states, "The Government intends to award Task Orders 1 and 2 (only) to one or two "Best of Breed" awardees under the MAC ID/IQ." Would the Government consider breaking either of the TOs into multiple TOs if it is apparent that an offeror's capabilities are superior for specific subtasks?

No, the government will make a single award for the full work scope as defined in each of the defined task orders.

HDTRA1-18-R-0045 Draft RFP Questions and Responses – Other Questions (unassigned)

# DRFP

Reference

Question Gov’t Response

67 General I just wanted to point out that the FBO record released with the Draft documents for DTRA -

AGENCY WIDE IT SERVICE DESIGN

(Solicitation Number: HDTRA1- 18-R-0045) says the notice type is Combined Synopsis/Solicitation and I just wanted to confirm that the response date of 7/23/18 is for questions/suggestions to the released Draft documents.

The response date of 7/23/18 is for questions/suggestions to the released Draft RFP & attachments/exhibits.

(submitted by email 7/13)

68 General Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation posted as solicitation number HDTRA118R0045 on FBO contain requirements similar to a existing contract or will this be a new requirement? If possible, please provide the current contract number.

This is a new requirement and is part of the overall "one acquisition/two-contracts" strategy for DTRA Agency- Wide IT Support Services released last fall and a complimentary RFP to HDTRA1-18-R-0002 (which closed out on 16 April 2018). This DRFP scope includes work currently being performed under HDTRA1-08-D-0016 (Leidos)

69 General Will the Government please post the anticipated procurement schedule?

While all dates are still tentative and subject to change, the general plan is to release the final RFP in mid-late August, have responses due in mid- October, and target award announcements by the end of Feb or early March 2019.

70 Task Order Performance Work Statements

Is the MicroSoft services support function included in the TOs? If so, where and which task orders?

no, for the foreseeable the government intends to contract separately for the Microsoft services.

71 PWS TO-1 and

PWS TO-2

Will the government provide technical data and relevant labor hour history from the current IT Services contract to assist vendors in their proposal (to supplement the historical staffing levels mentioned in the PWS Background sections)? A "Supplemental Technical and Proposal Data" package such as that provided in Attachment 13 and Attachment 14 of the ITSS

The government included historical FTE levels in both Task Order PWSs in the paragraph 1.2 Background sections. It is our expectation that this background information is adequate to provide the scale and scope insight required to response to the solicitation.

Small Business Solicitation, Final RFP package would be immensely helpful.

72 General Would the Government share labor categories and level of effort mapped by functional area from the current contract? A "Supplemental Technical and Proposal Data" package such as that provided in Attachment 13 and Attachment 14 of the ITSS Small Business Solicitation, Final RFP package would be immensely helpful.

The government included historical FTE levels in both Task Order PWSs in the paragraph 1.2 Background sections. It is our expectation that this background information is adequate to provide the scale and scope insight required to response to the solicitation.

73 General In the final RFP do you envision the contractors technical response will need to cover PWS 1, 2 and 3 plus overarching themes from the SOO?

Yes, the RFP responses, per Section L instructions, will cover the IDIQ SOO and the Task Order PWS requirements. That said, you'll find the SOO requirements align with the task order PWSs.