The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
| PWS Section 1.7.3.5 Personnel Security |
| Will the government accept an Interim Top Secret facility clearance to satisfy this requirement? |
| Final secret is required. |
| 2 |
| PWS Section 1.3 Objectives |
| With the current PWS language and current NAICS modification, does the government intend to continue to require the services of a certified public accounting (CPA) firm? Given the lack of attestation requirements and the statement in Section L.1.1 that does not explicitly request the services of an independent accounting firm, we recommend opening up the opportunity to accounting firms that may not be licensed as a CPA firm, but who employ CPAs and certified individuals to provide related accounting services. Such an approach would increase the number of qualified firms able to bid on this engagement. |
| Yes. The government intend to continue to require the services of a CPA firm. See in amendment "7"….Need to add that language. |
| 3 |
| Attachment 1A, Task Area Chart/Experience |
| Instructions request that “Offerors shall provide the information provided on the first page in this attachment to identify which task areas they consider themselves to be subject matter experts…” |
| Corrected with amendment 5. See L.4.2.1 |
| 4 |
| Table L.2 - Proposal Organization |
| Under Volume/Tab II, the government requests a max of 17 pages per person. Does that indicate that the Task Area Chart is requested for each individual proposed? |
| Yes |
| 5 |
| Appendix 1 |
| Appendix 1 was not posted. Can you please release on FBO? |
| Yes, see amendment 7. |
| 6 |
| Appendix 5 |
| The document identifies the need for key personnel at the Junior Task Manager or higher. Is this truly a key personnel requirement, or recommended labor category for "leading" efforts? |
| Yes, see amendment 7. |
| 7 |
| PWS |
| Many tasks contain a phrase, "The Contractor shall provide a monthly deliverable identifying areas evaluated/tested, weakness identified…," however, there is no direct deliverable corollary. Will the Government be updating the deliverables to reflect, or designate a pre-existing deliverable such as the Monthly Status Report for basic inclusion of these details. |
| Corrected in amendment 7. |
| 8 |
| Amendment 1, L.2.10 Distribution and Copies |
| Regarding Hardcopy Submission: The Amended RFP states in Section L that “All volumes shall be submitted in written form (4 copies) and CD-R or DVD-R (write once/read only) (1 copy) that is “closed” so that no further writes can be made to the media. Later in Section L.2.10, the amended RFP states “Offerors shall submit six (6) hard copy versions each of Volumes I, II, III, IV. Five (5) of the copies shall have the offeror’s name and any other identifiers redacted or removed. Offerors shall submit three (3) hard copy version each of Volume V. Two (2) of the copies shall have the offeror’s name and any other identifiers redacted or removed. |
| Correct in amendment 5. |
| 9 |
| Amendment 1, Section L.5.2 / L.5.3 |
| RFP states at L.5.3.4, "Once the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror." |
| Yes, if available, include CPARS with your proposal. Yes, completed PPQs should be sent directly from Points of Contact to the Government. See amendment 6. |
| 10 |
| Amendment 1, L.4.2.1, Task Area Chart/Experience |
| In the Government's explanation it identifies proposing on Task Orders. Can the government clarify its intent of this approach and how that supports a single award FFP contract? Can the government also clarify the meaning of “…all Task Areas will be covered by the award contract suites” |
| Yes, corrected in amendment. |
| 11 |
| Amendment 1, L.5.3.1, Summary page |
| Please clarify whether the requirement for submission is up to 3 or 5 past performances, and/or what is the criteria for submitting 5 vs 3. |
| This is corrected in amendment 5. |
| 12 |
| Amendment 1, M.2.1.2, Relative Importance // Table 4.0 |
| This section defines the relative importance as Technical Rating and Technical Risk as most important, followed by Past Performance and then Cost/Price. Factor III. Small Business is not included in this explanation, but was identified in Section M.2.1. Factors and Subfactors. Can the government clarify the relative importance of Factor III? |
| Yes, corrected in amendment 5 M.4.0. |
| 13 |
| Amendment 1, M.5.1.2 Past Performance |
| Section M highlights past performance within the past 5 years from the issuance date, and Section L.5.3.1 identifies 3 years. Please clarify which standard should apply. |
| 5 years. Corrected in amendment 5. |
| 14 |
| PWS 1.5.4 Key Personnel |
| For the listed labor categories considered for Key Personnel, they are not consistent with the descriptions provided in Appendix 2. Specifically, the Partner/Principal and Senior Task Manager Roles require a Masters in the PWS, but not the Appendix description of labor categories. |
| Corrected in amendment 7. See section 1.5.4 |
| 15 |
| PWS 6.0 Quality, Table 3 and 6.2 Quality Assurance |
| The table highlights four performance objectives, while section 6.2 references six performance objectives and how/when they will be surveilled. Please clarify if performance objectives have been omitted from the table, or the surveillance plan needs to be corrected to four. |
| Corrected in amendment 7. See section 6.2 paragraph 2. |
| 16 |
| Amendment 1, Vol 1, Contract Documentation and Vol V Price Proposal |
| The RFP includes a requirement for a Total Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. The referenced FAR clause requires “offerors submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the contract.” Salaries and fringe benefits are cost-related data. Given that (Other than) cost and pricing data belongs in the Price Volume only, respectfully request this Compensation Plan requirement move to Volume V: Price Proposal. |
| Suggested response: Evaluation of the offeror's response will be determined as a measure of responsibility, not a measure of cost or price. |
| 17 |
| Amendment 1, l.2.9, Electronic Offers |
| RFP Section L, Communication states that DBO CON email box is the official dsca.ncr.dbo.mbx.cons@mail.mil email address for submission of proposals. Please clarify if Offerors are to submit an electronic version of the proposal to this mailbox in addition to the versions to be provided via CD/DVD. |
| Addressed in amendment 5. |
| 18 |
| Amendment 1, M1.1.3 // M7.1.2 //M.3.1.2 |
| Will the government be publishing a competitive range? How will the Contracting Officer determine how to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition? |
| Competitive range is determined on the basis of the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors. The contracting officer might limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. The contracting officer notifies all contractors eliminated from the competitive range. |
| 19 |
| Appendix 2 |
| For the LCATs described in the PWS and Appendix 2, will the government accept trade-offs for the degree type (i.e, Accounting or Business Management), for demonstrated experience in the associated field? |
| No. |
| 20 |
| Amendment 1, Section B, CLIN 0007-4007 |
| The amended solicitation only requires a pool of resources for Surge. Please confirm that the Pricing template – which has Surge CLINs – are placeholders for the Contract and are to be left blank for this submission. |
| Yes, those are placeholders. |
| 21 |
| Amendment 1, Section L, L.1.1 Who May Propose |
| This section makes reference to: “No “entity” may be awarded a Contract in both categories. No “entity’ may win more than one contract as a prime.” Can the government clarify if multiple awards are being made or confirm this RFP is for a single award. |
| Single award contract. |
| 22 |
| Amendment 1, L.3.2 |
| There are two “Tab 1” (Cover Page and Executive Summary) provided in the amended Section L for Volume 1, both in Table L.2, and L.3.2. Is this intentional? Please clarify the tab numbers for Volume 1. |
| Cover page tab was removed in Amendment 5 |
| 23 |
| Amendment 1, L.4.2 |
| In the amended Section L, L.4.2.3, “Tab 4” is Technical/Risk (Factor One). However, in Table L.2 and L.4.2 Format and Specific Content, Tab 4 is shown as Factor 1, Subfactor 1. Please confirm that Tab 4 is Factor 1, Subfactor 1; Tab 5 is Factor 1, Subfactor 2. |
| Corrected in amendment 6 under, Section L.4.2.3. |
| 24 |
| Amendment 1, L.5.2 |
| In L.5.2 of the amended Section L, it states “page count for this Past Performance volume is annotated above in Table L.2.” However, Table L.2 does not indicate an overall page count for Volume IV. Please confirm that offerors should use the page allotments as stated in Table L.2 only. |
| Corrected with amendment 5. |
| 25 |
| Amendment 1, L.5.1; |
| What is the relationship between requirements provided in L.5.1 Summary and those provided in L.5.3.1 Summary Page. Are these both part of what should be provided in Volume IV, Tab 2 Summary? Please clarify which requirements apply to this tab. |
| Corrected with amendment 5. |
| 26 |
| Amendment 1, L.5.2; L.5.3.3 |
| It appears that L.5.2 and L.5.3.3 both provide requirements for Volume IV, Tab 4. Please clarify these requirements. |
| Corrected with amendment 5. |
| 27 |
| Amendment 1, Section L, Table L.2/L3.2.1.2 |
| Table L.2 conflicts with L.3.2.1.2 Tab 1: Executive Summary. Please confirm that the Executive Summary (Volume 1, Tab 1) has a page limit of 5 pages. |
| Corrected with amendment 5. 3 Pages |
| 28 |
| Amendment 1, Section L, L.4.2.1 Tab 2 Task Area Chart/Experience |
| Can you please clarify on the definitions of Subject Matter Expert vs Experienced? Is SME geared more towards individual resources as a result of JVs or small business experience, and Experience speaks more to an offeror’s overall corporate experience? |
| Corrected in amemdment 6 - see revised attached 1a. |
| 29 |
| Amendment 1, Table L.2 / L.4.2.1 Tab 2 Task Area Chart/Experience |
| Table 2, Volume 2, Tab 2 states for page limit, “page for chart; 1 page for each experience, per person, Max 17 pages per person. (Pages not included in page count )“ |
| Corrected in amemdment 6. |
| 30 |
| Amendment 1, Section L, L.4.3.1 b) |
| Should item “b)” regarding the project manager be aligned to SubFactor Two: Staffing Plan and Personnel Approach? |
| Corrected with amendment 5. |
| 31 |
| Appendix 2 – Labor Categories, Descriptions and Responsibilities |
| LCAT – Partner/Principal – 12 years financial statement audit experience - Will the government update the Experience requirements to include “audit and/or audit readiness” experience to be in alignment with the description within the key personnel requirements in the PWS Key Personnel description 1.5.4.1 for Partner Principal |
| Corrected in amendment 7. Appendix 2 is reflected to align with PWS section 1.5.4.1 |
| 32 |
| Amendment 1, Page 23 of 41, L.5.2, and Page 26 of 41, L.5.3.4 – Past Performance Questionnaires |
| Section L has conflicting guidance regarding the past performance questionnaires. Can the government please clarify which instructions should be followed with regards to the Past Performance Questionnaires? |
| Corrected in amendment 6. See Section L.5.2. |
| 33 |
| Amendment 1, Table L.2 // L.4.2.3.2 |
| Can the government clarify page count for staffing? The page count chart of Amendment says 15 pages for “staffing and management” but the L.4.2.3.2 says 10 page limit for “staffing and personnel approach”. |
| Corrected in amendment 6, section L.4.2.3.2. |
| 34 |
| Amendment 1, L.4.2.3.2 |
| The government requests resumes and proofs of intent from all proposed personnel. Can the government clarify whether that means key personnel or all personnel identified in the proposal? |
| Resumes must be submitted for everyone |
| 35 |
| Amendment 1, L.4.2.3.1 Subfactor One |
| The amended RFP asks offerors for a “Technical Approach that clearly and concisely describes how the requirements of PWS Paragraphs 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 will be fulfilled. The technical proposal shall cover the Offeror’s approach for achieving each individual task area of the PWS Paragraph 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 in sufficient detail for it to be evaluated.” |
| Technical/ Risk and Management Approach shall include: |
a)Technical Approach that clearly and concisely describes how the requirements of PWS Paragraphs 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 will be fulfilled. The technical proposal shall cover the Offeror’s approach for achieving each individual task area of the PWS Paragraph 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 insufficient detail for it to be evaluated.
| 36 |
| Amendment 3, M.6.1.2, |
| The rating for Factor III Small Business Utilization Rating is described as acceptable/unacceptable. Will other criteria factor into the evaluation, or is it a binary statement based on the minimum quantitative requirement (10%) as defined in the section? If there are other qualitative factors, can the government please provide updated criteria? |
| Corrected in amendment 6. See section M.6.1. |
| 37 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR.pdf, Section I, page 30. |
| Regarding contract costs, can the Government please confirm that that contract clause 52.216-11 only applies to CLINs X008? |
| Applies to all cost reimbursement CLINs |
| 38 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR.pdf, Section I, page 34. |
| Regarding the included contract clause 52.219-4, can the Government confirm that they intend to provide price evaluation preference for HUBZone Small Businesses, as this is not referenced in Attachment B? If so, will the Government consider removing clause 52.219-4 from RFP to allow equal price evaluation from all offerors? |
| Deleted in amendment 6. |
| 39 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L.2.5, page 15 and L.7 Volume V, General Instructions, page 28. |
| Paragraph L.2.5 specifies that, “All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost/Price Proposal Volume.” Paragraph L.7 regarding Volume V (pricing) also states, “Pricing shall not be provided in any other part of the proposal.” As Total Compensation Plans also contain proprietary rate information and is related to pricing, suggest the government move requirement for Total Compensation Plan from Volume I to Volume V. |
| Evaluation of the offeror's response will be determined as a measure of responsibility, not a measure of cost or price. |
| 40 |
| FIAR_Pricing_Summary_ (RevTNT).xlsx |
| Can the Government please identify the “Quantity” and “Unit” to be used for price evaluation of CLINs X007? |
| TBD |
| 41 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.3.3 Systems, page 6. |
| Can the Government provide how many of the systems listed in paragraph 1.3.3 have already been transitioned to an RMF framework? |
| This cannot be determined at this time. |
| 42 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.3.3 Systems, page 6. |
| Have all system interfaces for the systems listed in 1.3.3 been previously identified, documented, and reconciled? |
| No. |
| 43 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 5.1.7 Continuity Plan, page 24. |
| Paragraph 5.1.7 requires a continuity plan that “ensures DSCA is capable of conducting its essential missions and functions under all threats and conditions, with or without warning.” This appears to suggest an operational mission contingency plan. Could the Government provide more information to clarify if this requirement is primarily from a FIAR and MICP perspective only, or involves all aspects of DSCA mission operations? |
| This is only from a FIAR and MICP perspective. |
| 44 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), paragraph 1.2 Background, page 4. |
| The PWS states that there are separate financial statements for Appropriated Accounts and Security Assistance Accounts (SAA). Does the Government expect two separate and distinct FIAR teams to support each of the separate Financial Statements, or one FIAR team to support both Appropriated Accounts and SAA financial statements? |
| No. One team will support both Appropriated Accounts and the SAA account. |
| 45 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), paragraph 1.2 Background, first paragraph, page 5. |
| To what extent is the Security Assistance Agency account included in audits of other DoD FBWT audit readiness efforts? Will the DSCA contractor under this contract be required to support these other associated FIAR efforts as well? |
| Yes. See section 5.4.4 of the PWS. |
| 46 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.5.3 Labor Categories, Descriptions, and Responsibilities, Page 10 |
| The proposed labor categories (LCAT) seem to reflect a CPA firm’s organizational hierarchy. This structure is more ridged and may lack the flexibility needed for this complex audit readiness and internal control improvement effort. Would the Government consider altering this staffing structure to allow the task and skill flexibility needed to support the complexity typical of FIAR and MICP efforts? |
| No. |
| 47 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L.2.4 Page Size and Format, para. 1, page 14 |
| Several document templates provided by the Government as RFP attachments appear to have margins less than 1 inch. Are Offerors required to adjust these templates to meet the requirement for 1-inch margins? |
| No need to adjust |
| 48 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, L.5.2 Past Performance Questionnaires for Recent and Relevant Contracts, paragraph 2, page 23; and M.5.1.2 General, paragraph 2, page 34. |
| Can the government please clarify its definition of recency as it pertains to Past Performance? The first reference defines relevancy as 3 years within issuance of the RFP, while the second reference defines it as 5 years within RFP issuance. |
| Corrected to 5 years in Amendment 6 |
| 50 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), Section 1.3 Objectives, Subsection Scope, p. 5-6. |
| The PWS references OUSD(C) FIAR Guidance throughout the document which was recently replaced by the DoD Financial Statement Audit Guide and DoD Internal Control over Financial Reporting Guide in May 2018. Can the government clarify that the new recent guidance is intended to be used as the authoritative FIAR and MICP guidance? |
| Both will be used as authoritative guidance. |
| 51 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), Section 1.3.2 Regulations, p. 6 |
| The reference list of regulations to be used does not include the Federal Information Systems Control Audit Manual (FISCAM) or National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), both of which pertain to IT assessments. Can the government clarify whether this list is intended as an exhaustive or merely representative list of governing FIAR and MICP regulations? |
| Corrected in Amendment 7. See section 1.3.2 |
| 52 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), Section 5.2.2 Audit Remediation, p. 26 |
| This paragraph makes several references to recurring tests of key controls. Can the Government clarify its definition of key controls in this instance as solely key controls over financial reporting and systems, or do they include key controls over non-financial operations as well? |
| The recurring test of controls within this section only focuses on ICOFR. Corrected in amendment 7, see section 5.2.3 |
| 53 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), Section 5.2.2 Audit Remediation, page 26; and Section 5.2.3 Audit Simulation, page 26. |
| Can the government confirm whether the contractor is expected to perform recurring key control testing on a monthly or a semi-annual basis? |
| Corrected in amendment 7, see section 5.2.3 and 5.2.4. |
| 54 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.5.4.4 IT Senior Manager- Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA), page 11. |
| The description of the technical roles and responsibilities of the IT Senior Manager are a little vague. Could the Government please expand and clarify the expected roles and responsibilities of the IT Senior Manager regarding DSCA systems for this contract? |
| No. |
| 55 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t); paragraph 1.4.2.1, Alternate Place of Performance, page 7, and Amendment 2, dd0254.pdf |
| Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the DD254 released with Amend 2 were blank and did not contain alternative places of performance. Could the Government please provide these locations. |
| Those would be identified by the offeror. |
| 56 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, L.2.1.A, Table L.2- Proposal Organization, page 13. |
| Reference Table L.2, Volume I, Tab 1 is listed twice for both Cover Page and Executive Summary. Could the Government please confirm that this is not a typo, and that both these documents are intended to be included in Tab 1? |
| Corrected in Amendment 5 |
| 57 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section M, paragraph M.1.1.1, page 30. |
| The first paragraph states, “Offerors are to propose to the evaluation factors included in this section ONLY and NOT required to propose to the entire PWS. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.” This suggests conflicting guidance (and implies ineligibility for non-compliance) that Offerors should propose only to be evaluated factors, but may also propose to other non-evaluated factors. Could the Government please clarify that proposing the entire PWS will not disqualify Offerors? |
| Corrected text see highlight |
| 58 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t); paragraph 1.3, Scope, page 5. |
| This paragraph states, “DSCA will require support from a certified public accounting firm with extensive financial audit readiness and audit examination experience, working large and complex accounts for federal agencies.” Can the gov’t please clarify if they require a CPA firm as a Prime Offeror, or if a sub-contract CPA firm as part of the Offeror’s team will satisfy this requirement? |
| 59 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t); paragraph 1.4.2.1, Alternate Place of Performance, page 7. |
| This paragraph references alternative places of performance as identified in various sections of the DD254, which was not provided as one of the RFP documents released on 13 Oct 2018. Could the gov’t please provide these locations? |
| These are the locations provided by the contractor in the DD254. |
| 60 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t); paragraph 1.4.3, Hours of Operation, second paragraph, page 8. |
| The paragraph states, “The workday may be extended beyond core hours under the oversight of the Government if on-site support is required. The Contractor is authorized to vary schedules, as necessary, to cover these short notice assignments. The Contractor is not authorized separately billed premium pay for this effort.” Could the Government please confirm that adjustments to staff workhours on days other than extended-hour workdays will be the acceptable means of contractually compensating for these additional hours? |
| Yes. Adjustments may be made to accommodate daily requirements. |
| 61 |
| HQ0013-18-R-0001_-_Att_1a_-_Task_Area_Chart-Experience_-_RFP |
| The Task #’s indicated in the chart do not accurately align with the Tasks as written in the PWS document narrative. Could the Government please reconcile these Task numbers to help clarify requirements they desire to be addressed in the Offeror’s proposals? |
| Corrected Amendment 6. See attachment 1a. |
| 62 |
| HQ0013-18-R-0001_-_Att_B_-_SB_PP_Format_-_RFP, page 1; and HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L.6.0, paragraph L6.2.1, sub-paragraph 5), page 27-28. |
| Attachment B references HBCU/MI as a desired small business category, but this is not mentioned FIAR Contract document (page 28) as one that is part of the evaluation. Could the gov’t please clarify if HBCU/MI will be an evaluated small business category? |
| Corrected Amendment 5. It will not be an evaluated small business. |
| 63 |
| FIAR_Pricing_Summary_(RevTNT) Excel Spreadsheet. |
| This pricing sheet requires FFP price estimates by various CLINs, which is difficult to determine without Government providing information of the required level-of-effort (LOE) for each CLIN category. This LOE could also change from the base period throughout the various option periods. Could the Government please confirm that it is to be assumed that the level-of-effort and work focus will remain the same throughout the base and option years as a means of providing pricing estimates? |
| Contractor is required to scope the work based on the task description in the PWS. |
| 64 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), Table of Contents, page 2. |
| There is a section 4.0 titled, “4.0 CONTRACTOR FURNISHED ITEMS AND RESPONSIBILITIES,” however the sections below follow a 5.X format. Are there missing 4.1-4.X subsections, or rather a missing 5.0 heading? |
| Correct in amendment 7. |
| 65 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.1.2 Introduction, page 4. |
| This section states: “Because of the fluidity of the support needed, the contractor tasks herein are not meant to be all-inclusive. Additional tasks will be within scope, and of a similar nature, complexity, and skill level. The specific work effort related to these areas will be explained, prioritized and further clarified on a regular basis by the COR.” Can Government clarify if this added scope will be subsumed under initial pricing and staffing, or if this will be a modification of work? If subsumed under current scope, could Government please additional details of the deliverable(s) this work is envisioned to be captured under? |
| Corrected in amendment 7. See section 1.1.2 |
| 66 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.2 Background, page 5. |
| This section states, “DSCA is preparing for a limited-scope audit starting FY 2019…” Can Government confirm if this limited-scope audit is in fact being pursued currently in FY 2019 and if so, what scope is being addressed and if audit is being performed by external IPA, DoDIG, or otherwise? |
| Yes. This limited-scope audit will be conducted in FY 2019. |
| 67 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.2 Background, page 5. |
| This section states, “DSCA must maintain this momentum and successfully perform the audit readiness and examination/audit support efforts for the DSCA Headquarters, the Military Departments, the Defense Agencies, the Combatant Commands (COCOMs), and the DSCA service providers that include other relevant stakeholders that manage DSCA DoD Appropriated and the Security Assistance Accounts.” Can Government clarify if DSCA is also considered a Service Provider to other Departments/Agencies, and if so, if an SSAE 18 examination has been requested from customers? |
| DSCA is not a service provider. |
| 68 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.3 Objectives, page 5. |
| This section states: “Objective I: Develop and restructure the financial reporting framework that produces the DSCA’s SAA financial statements.” Can Government provide additional details on the specific tool(s) and system(s) currently used by DSCA to generate final SAA financial statements? |
| DSCA currently does not have a reliable framework as stated in Objective I. The contractor will have to develop this framework. |
| 69 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.3 Objectives, page 5. |
| This section states, “Objective II: Achieve an unmodified or “clean” audit opinion for the SAA and the DoD Appropriated Accounts.” The previous page indicates the desired timeline for undergoing a full financial statement audit for SAA is by FY 2022. Can Government confirm if the goal of a “clean” opinion is associated with the first full audit in FY 2022? |
| See section 5.2.2, the objective of the Government is to achieve a clean audit opinion by FY 2022. |
| 70 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.5.2 Contractor Qualifications, page 9. |
| This section states: “The Contractor shall possess the overall aggregate skills, expertise, and experience in each of the identified areas to successfully complete all contract requirements,” and then includes the following in the subsequent list: “DOD and DSCA legacy financial management systems and processes,” “Operational DSCA Financial Data Structure,” “Operational DSCA Data Dictionary,” and “DSCA policies, systems and procedures for personnel, acquisition, inventory, property and material management.” The inclusion of DSCA-specific items in this list implies the contractor team would require a past performance with DSCA specifically. Can Government clarify this would not be a requirement, but rather, commensurate experience that demonstrates ability to support in these areas? |
| The Contractor shall possess the overall aggregate skills to be able to perform the tasks listed in the PWS. |
| 71 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.5.4 Key Personnel, page10. |
| This section states the following regarding key personnel: “Prior to substituting, removing, replacing, or diverting any of the specified individuals, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer fourteen (14) business days in advance and shall submit a written request and justification (including proposed substitutions) in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on this Contract.” To better align this notification with accepted industry staff replacement standards, we recommend changing this notification requirement to be expressed as fourteen (14) calendar days or ten (10) business days. |
| This will remain as is. |
| 72 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.5.4.4 IT Senior Manager-CISA, page 11; and Appendix_2, Labor Categories. |
| PWS section states that for the IT Senior Manager-CISA role, “One (1) year of audit information systems or providing IT audit readiness experience can be substituted with a CISA certification.” Can Government clarify this means an individual with one-year experience would not require a CISA? Also, Appendix 2 lists CISA or similar IT certification as a requirement. Could Government clarify if having a CISA would also substitute for one (1) year of experience? |
| The minimum requirement states that a IT Senior Manager should have a four (4) years experience. However, one (1) of the four (4) years of experience can be subsituted with a CISA designation. |
| 73 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.5.4 Key Personnel, page 10; and Appendix_2, Labor Categories. |
| PWS and Appendix 2 descriptions for the Partner/Principal labor category differ. Could Government please clarify if 12 or 15 years experience is required, if audit readiness experience counts towards this time, if DoD/Federal-specific experience is required, and if a master’s is required? |
| Corrected in amendment 7. |
| 74 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.5.4.3 Senior Tasker Manager-CPA, page 11; and Appendix_2, Labor Categories. |
| Can the Government confirm if the requirement to have both a master’s and CPA detailed for the Senior Task Manager-CPA in the PWS is just for the Senior Task Manager(s) that would be considered key personnel vs. the more general Senior Task Manager labor category detailed in Appendix 2 which does not list a master’s and CPA requirement? |
| Corrected in amendment 7. |
| 75 |
| Appendix_2, Labor Categories, |
| The LCAT table row numbering reflects going from 11 to 15 in the last two rows. Can Government confirm this table presents all available labor categories and that there are not additional missing labor categories (potential rows 12-14) missing? |
| Corrected in amendment 7. |
| 76 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.7.3.7 Cyber Security Threat Plan, page16. |
| This paragraph states that the contractor must develop a Cyber Security Threat Plan that to “ensure appropriate security of IT resources that are developed, processed, or used under this contract.” Can the Government please provide more detail and clarify the scope of this requirement as it applies to aspects/networks/IT devices owned by the Contractor and exclude those owned/controlled by the Government. |
| This is to include government and contractor equipment. |
| 77 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), paragraph 5.2.3 Audit Simulation, page 26, and paragraph 5.3.3 Control Test Plans and Corrective Action Plans, page 28, and paragraph 5.3.4 Documentation and Testing, page 28. |
| Section 5.2.3 indicates “Recurring testing will occur semi-annual for DSCA key controls...” |
| Corrected in amendment 7. |
| 78 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), paragraph 5.2.3.1, Provided by Client (PBC) Requests, page 26. |
| This section notes: “The Contractor will support all requests as required for audit and day-to-day activities from OUSD(C), Army, GAO, DoDIG Audits, Treasury, and other DoD stakeholders during the audit.” Can Government please clarify the scope of audits from GAO, DoDIG, etc. that the Contractor under this contract is expected to support? The Contractor recognizes that DoDIG and GAO can initiate various audits with agencies (performance, operational, etc.). Is Task 5.2.3.1 support specific to just financial statement audits of the DSCA DoD Appropriated Accounts and the Security Assistance Accounts (SAAs)? |
| The Contractor will support all requests as required for audit and day-to-day activities from OUSD(C), Army, GAO, DoDIG Audits, Treasury, and other DoD stakeholders during the audit. The Contractor shall develop and track reporting matrix to measure status and submission of PBCs and Key Supporting Documentation (KSD). |
| 79 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), paragraph 5.4.5 Asset Management, page 29. |
| First paragraph of this section specifies Environmental Liabilities and Property, Plant, and Equipment E&C support only. Can Government confirm/clarify if Inventory support as detailed in this first paragraph would also be required? |
| Corrected in amendment 7. |
| 80 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 5.6.2 Agency Financial Report (AFR), page 29. |
| This section details the mandate and requirement for AFR reporting and what the AFR includes, but does not specify the specific Contractor support the Government is seeking to assist DSCA in generation of the AFR. Could Government please add details to this section regarding Contractor AFR tasks? |
| See PWS section 1.3, SCOPE. |
| 81 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 5.6.3 Annual Performance Reports (APR), page 30. |
| This section details the mandate/requirement for APR reporting and what the APR includes, but does not specify the specific Contractor support the Government is seeking to assist DSCA in generation of the APR. Could Government please add details to this section regarding Contractor APR tasks? |
| See PWS section 1.3, SCOPE. |
| 82 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), Table 2 – Deliverables), page 32. |
| The breakdown and specific requirements for the “Audit Readiness Program/Audit Remediation/ Audit Simulation” in the deliverable table lacks sufficient detail to ensure the Contractor can adequately plan for staffing, level of effort, and timing, and deliver in accordance with DSCA expectations. Could the Government please provide additional details of deliverable expectations for these requirements. |
| Corrected in amendment 7. |
| 83 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), Table 2 – Deliverables), page 33. |
| The deliverable titled “AU documentation, including but not limited to process flowcharts, narratives, and testing procedures,” lists ~35 HQ & Component AUs due May 20XX, ~67 HQ and Component AUs due May 20XX, and ~18 HQ & Component AUs due September 20XX. Can Government clarify if any of these number of HQ & Component AUs are overlapping or duplicate to assist us in planning for level of effort and timeline? |
| Corrected in amendment 7. |
| 84 |
| HQ0013-18-R-0001_-_Att_1a_-_Task_Area_Chart-Experience_-_RFP, Attachment 1A & HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L, paragraph L.4.2.1, page 21. |
| The headers of the two far right columns and footnote at bottom of the Task Area Chart suggest that multiple task orders and multiple awardees are envisioned with this contract. As this conflicts with the RFP stated single-award, FFP solicitation guidance, can Government clarify if additional task orders are expected to be issued for this work? |
| Corrected Amendment 6. Single award contract. |
| 85 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L, paragraph L.4.2.1, page 21. |
| Similar to question 88 above, can the Government please clarify the following similar language in the fourth paragraph, which states “The intent is to ascertain each Offeror’s self-determined experience and what they are likely to propose on to assure that all Task Areas will be covered by the award of the Contract suites.” This suggests multiple task orders are expected to be issued for this work, and possibly multiple awardees? Could the Government please clarify this wording to reflect envisioned contract task and award requirements. |
| Corrected Amendment 6, see attachment 1a. |
| 86 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), paragraph 5.2.3 Audit Simulation, page 26. |
| Can the Government provide clarity that the scope of audit simulation to audit full financial statements or segment testing? |
| This is a performance based contract. It is up to the offeror to determine the best approach to take in regards to task 5.2.4. |
| 87 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 5.2.2 Audit Remediation, page 26. |
| Does the audit remediation scope only relate to Annual Full financial statement audit, or all external and internal audit requests? |
| This scope applies to both. DSCA & SAA Full Financial statement audits and any PBC request from other IPAs that are external and internal. |
| 88 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.9 Organizational Conflict of Interest, second paragraph, page 19. |
| Can the Government please provide more detail on the requirement for “formal” FAR Subpart 9.5 education to ensure employees do not divulge proprietary data, trade secrets, confidential information, or restricted data from other companies. |
| Contracting questions |
| 89 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 1.5.4.3 Senior Task Manager-CPA, para. 1, page 11. |
| Is any certification required to support Senior Task Manager MICP responsibilities, or would domain experience suffice? |
| Domain experience will suffice. |
| 90 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), paragraph 1.4, page 7. |
| Under 1.4 Operational Information, there is indication of working off-site be it permanently at contractor site or temporarily with telework. Could the Government explain if there will be any expectation for classified work be accessed from contractor site, i.e. requiring physically secure contractor facilities and networks? |
| There is no expectation for classified work to be accessed from the contractor site or networks. |
| 91 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), paragraph 1.5.4.4, page 11. |
| Section 1.5.4.4 is titled “IT Senior Manager- Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA). Appendix 2 lists the certification requirements for IT Senior Manager with “CISA or similar IT professional certification required.” Can the Government please confirm a similar IT professional certification can be held in place of the CISA, and also which similar IT certifications would suffice (e.g. CISM, CISSP, etc.)? |
| CISA, CISM, and CISSP would suffice. |
| 92 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), paragraph 1.6.3, Contract Senior Manager (CSM), page 12; and Appendix_2, Labor Categories. |
| Section 1.6.3 identifies a Contract Senior Manager (CSM) position and states the “The Contractor shall provide a contract senior manager who shall be responsible for the performance of the work.” However, this role is not listed on Appendix 2 for LCATs. Could the Government please clarify if this position is expected to be separate from the Program Manager and/or other senior LCAT responsibilities? Could the PM, Partner/Principal or other senior LCAT positions perform the duties of this position at the Contractor’s discretion? |
| This position can be filled at the discretion of the offeror. |
| 93 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L, Table L.2, page 14. |
| The remark under the Page Limit column for Volume II, Tab 2, makes a reference to “Max 17 pages per person.” This is a confusing reference to people when associated narrative discusses this as Task experience for Offeror firms. Could the Government please further explain this reference to “persons” and how it applies to the Task Area Chart/Experience templates? |
| Corrected Amendment 6, see attachment 1a. One page per task. There are 17 total tasks in attachment 1a (1pg per person*17tasks). |
| 94 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L, paragraph L.2.3, page 15. |
| This paragraph states, “Page limitations shall not be circumvented by including inserted text boxes/pop-ups or internet links to additional information; such inclusions are not acceptable and will not be considered part of the proposal.” Does this restriction preclude the use of text being placed in any type of traditional proposal “call-out boxes,” even those that do not contain hyper-links? |
| Page count is inclusive of all text included in your response |
| 95 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L, paragraph L.2.8, page 15, and L.3.2.3 Tab 3. |
| Paragraph L.2.8 states, “Each volume may contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used,” while paragraph L.3.2.3 states, “The offeror shall include a master list of abbreviations and acronyms used within the proposal.” This appears to be conflicting guidance. Can the Government please confirm whether glossaries of abbreviations are optional or not for proposal volumes. |
| Each volume may or may not have a abbreviations and acronyms list |
| 96 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L, paragraph L.3.2.9 Tab 9, page 19. |
| The second paragraph states, “Offerors must complete Block 6 of the attached DD254 with the appropriate information for their companies.” No DD254 was provided as an attachment to the 13 or 22 Oct 2018 RFP documents release. Could the Government please provide. |
| Instructions and attachment were provided via amendment 5 |
| 97 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L, paragraph L.3.2.11.5, page 19, and paragraph L.7.1, page 28. |
| This paragraph requires a Total Compensation Plan be included in Volume I, although paragraph 7.0 Volume V, Price Proposal provides conflicting guidance, “Pricing shall not be provided in any other part of the proposal.” Recommend moving the Total Compensation Plan from Volume I to Volume V. |
| Suggested response: Evaluation of the offeror's response will be determined as a measure of responsibility, not a measure of cost or price. |
| 98 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR.pdf, Section I, 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (Oct 2016), page 40. |
| During the performance of the contract, will the Contractor be required to use Contractor-owned systems and/or computers to process DSCA information and data? |
| See section 3 of the PWS. |
| 99 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR.pdf, Section I, 252.244-7001, Contractor Purchasing System Administration – Basic (May 2014), page 47. |
| Is the Offeror required to have a government approved purchasing system? |
| Yes |
| 100 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR.pdf, Section I, 252.244-7001, Contractor Purchasing System Administration – Basic (May 2014), page 47. |
| Is the Offeror required to follow all steps under this clause when awarding a subcontract to team members named in the Offeror’s proposal to the government? |
| Yes |
| 101 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR.pdf, Section K - Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors, (section update was not provided with Amend 1 mod) |
| Is a Section K required if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM Web site? |
| If reps and certs are in SAM, annotate this on your proposal response. |
| 102 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L, Table L.2, page 13; and paragraph L.3.2.1.2, page 17. |
| Table L.2, Volume I, Tab 1, states page limit for Executive Summary is 3 pages, yet narrative in paragraph L.3.2.1.2 on page 17 states “(5)” pages. Could the Government please confirm which page count applies? |
| Corrected to 3 pages Amendment 6 |
| 103 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L, Table L.2, page 14; and paragraph L.4.2.3.2, page 22. |
| Table L.2, Volume II, Tab 5, states page limit for Staffing Plan is 15 pages, yet narrative in paragraph L.4.2.3.2 on page 22 states “(10)” pages. Could the Government please confirm which page count applies? |
| Corrected to 15 in Amendment 6 |
| 104 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L, Table L.2, page 14. |
| Table L.2, Volume III, Tab 4, under the page limit column, references “1 PP Description (Att 4).” As there is no RFP Attachment 4, could this be a typo and actually referring to RFP Attachment C, Past Performance Description? Could the Government please clarify? |
| Corrected in Amendment 5 |
| 105 |
| PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), paragraphs 5.6.2 and 5.6.3, page 29, 30. |
| Regarding the two paragraphs describing Agency Financial Report (AFR) and Annual Performance Reports (APR) for Security Assistance Accounts (SAA). Unlike other PWS paragraphs that clearly indicate Contractor requirements, these two paragraphs seem to only state the governing regulatory references and report elements, and do not provide guidance on Contractor support requirements. Table 2 (page 34) states only “Develop” the AFR/APR. Could the Government please provide more detail on the anticipated degree of Contractor support anticipated in developing these two reports. |
| Corrected in amendment 7. See paragraphs 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 |
| 106 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0002, Section L, paragraph L.2.9, page 8. |
| Paragraph states, “Attachment 9 must be submitted in the format provided.” There is no document labeled as Attch 9 in any of the releases, could the Government please clarify this reference. |
| Corrected in amendment 5, see section L.2.9. |
| 107 |
| Amend_1, Section L.2.1, p. 14 of 41 & Section L.5.3.3, p. 26 of 41 |
| The proposal layout table cited in the first reference seems to place a 3-page limit on past performance sheets; however, the second reference cites the maximum number of pages as 5. Can the government please clarify what the page limit is for a past performance sheet? |
| Corrected in amendment 5, see table L.2. |
| 108 |
| HQ0013-18-R-0001_-_Att_1a_-_Task_Area_Chart-Experience_-_RFPv2, p.1 of 3 |
| The first page of this attachment separates Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) as separate tasks under 5.2, yet they are combined as “Audit Readiness Program” in paragraph 5.2.1 of the PWS (page 25). Could the Government please clarify how these are to be addressed as separate tasks in the Task Area Experience Chart, or consider combining them. |
| Yes, they have been combined. See attachment 1a |
| 109 |
| HQ0013-18-R-0001_-_Att_1a_-_Task_Area_Chart-Experience_-_RFPv2, and PWS_FIAR_Contract_as_of_11_Oct_2018_(v4t), 5.6.3, page 30. |
| Can the Government please clarify if Task Area 8.6 is a typo and refers to PWS section 5.6.3 Annual Performance Reports (APR) for Security Assistance Accounts (SAA)? Or, if the Government wants a write-up regarding SAA and the Offerors’ experience working with or around this type of account. |
| Yes, corrected in amendment 6. |
| 110 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Section L.5.3.4, page 26. |
| Can the government please insert the missing legend where it states, “The completed questionnaires should be contained in a second envelope marked with the mailing address and the following legend:” |
| Corrected amendment 6. See section L.5.5.4 |
| 111 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0002, Section L.5.3.4, para. 2, page 19 and HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0003, page 1. |
| Can the government please clarify if the past performance questionnaires are due to the government from the vendors at 2 PM on November 13, 2018? Per Amendment 0003, the proposals are due at 12 PM on November 13, 2018, and typically the PPQs are due at the same time. |
| Changed via amendment 6. See section a of solicitation. |
| 112 |
| HQ001318R0001_FIAR, Amend 0001, Sections L.5.2 (page 23), and L.5.3.4, page 26. |
| There is conflicting guidance in these two paragraphs of whether completed PPQs should be sent back to Offerors for inclusion in submitted proposals, or directly to the Government. Can the Government clarify? |
| Corrected in amendment 5, see section L.5.5.4 |
| 113 |
| N/A |
| Is there a current, incumbent contractor performing some or all the services described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS)? |
| Yes. |
| 114 |
| N/A |
| If an incumbent contractor is performing some or all the services described in the PWS, what is the number of annual contractor Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) performing these services? |
| No questions will be answered about the current contract |
| 115 |
| N/A |
| Will the Government provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE)? |
| No |
| 116 |
| SF-33 |
| The SF-33 indicates the solicitation number is HQ001318R0001; however, the header in certain areas of the solicitation also include the solicitation number HQ001318R0011. Will the Government please confirm the solicitation number is HQ001318R0001? |
| Corrected in amendment 4. |
| 117 |
| SF 30 |
| Will the Government please clarify the proper submittal time? Amendment 2 states that the submission date for proposals has been extended to November 13, 2018 at 3pm; however, Amendment 3 states that the required response date/time has changed from 13-Nov-2018 to 13-Nov-2018 12:00PM. |
| Corrected in amendment 4. |
| 118 |
| Section I. |
| Given that the resulting contract will be a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP)-type contract, would the Government please remove 52.216-7 and 52.216-11 from the clauses incorporated by reference? |
| The Government requires clauses in the solicitation as there are cost reimbursement type CLINS |
| 119 |
| L.1.1 |
| The amended solicitation allows “Individual firms, firms formally organized specifically for this FIAR, or any other responsible prospective contractor” to submit a proposal. |
| 120 |
| L.1.2 |
| Will the Government confirm electronic copies of our final proposal are to be submitted to dsca.ncr.dbo.mbx.cons@mail.mil instead of the Point of Contact (POC) emails listed in L.1.2 for the Contracting Officer (CO) and Contract Specialist (CS)? |
| Corrected in amendment 5, see section L.2.9. |
| 121 |
| L.2.10 |
| If necessary, may the offeror provide more than one sealed box (if the contents cannot fit in one)? If so, please provide any additional requirements. |
| Corrected in amendment 5, see section L.2.11 |
| 122 |
| L.2.10 |
| Is the offeror permitted to submit the hard copy of our proposal via hand delivery? If so: |
| Yes |
| 123 |
| L.2.3 |
| This section states, “Pages shall be numbered per volume and/or tab within the volume.” |
| 124 |
| L.2.3 |
| This section states, “Indexing pages will not be included in limitations.” |
| Corrected in amendment 5, see section L.2.3 |
| 125 |
| L.2.4 |
| This section states, “Use at least one-inch margins on the top and bottom and one-inch side margins.” |
| 126 |
| L.2.4 |
| This section indicates 1-inch margins are required; however, the Government’s template for Attachment 1a falls outside of the 1-inch margins. Please advise. |
| This is not applicable to attachments. |
| 127 |
| L.2.4 |
| This section states, “Page size shall be 8.5 by 11 inches (except as indicated in paragraph 2.2.2.2).” |
| Corrected in amendment 5, see section L.2.4. |
| 128. |
| L.2.9 |
| This section states, “Volumes II, III and IV shall have a separate file for each Tab.” |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency