Questions_137_-_208__December_16_2015.pdf

Topic

Reference

Question

137.

Final RFP

Does the Government intend to answer all of the questions and issue a revised draft prior to releasing the final RFP?

If time permits the government may issue a draft RF.

138.

Contract Types

Sec. B. CLIN Descriptions prior to the Preamble; Sec.

B.4; B.5.1;

G.4(a); G.5(a-e);

Sec. L

It appears the intent of the contract is to issue only Cost-Plus- Fixed-Fee Task Orders as specified in the CLIN Descriptions prior to the Preamble, Sec. B.4, “Order Type Preference” and Sec. B.5.1, “Cost Reimbursement (CPFF). However, in Sec.

G.4(a), “Order Information”, second to last item states, “The estimated Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF)...” This is an introduction of a second contract type. In addition, Sec. G.5, “Types of Orders Under Indefinite Delivery Type Contracts” under paragraphs (a) through (e) specify the following as possible contract types for issued Task Orders: Firm-Fixed- Price, Firm Fixed Price (Level of Effort), Cost-Plus-Fixed- Fee (Completion) and Cost-Plus- Fixed-Fee (Level of Effort).

Also contained within the introduction paragraphs to Sec. L, “Instructions to Offerors”, it specifies CPFF Task Orders for labor and Cost Reimbursable for Travel. Please clarify if CPFF will be the only contract type utilized for the performance of this contract.

Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Final RFP

Does the Government intend to answer all of the questions and issue a revised draft prior to releasing the final RFP?

If time permits the government may issue a draft RFP

Contract Types

Sec. B. CLIN Descriptions prior to the Preamble; Sec.

B.4; B.5.1;

G.4(a); G.5(a-e);

Sec. L

It appears the intent of the contract is to issue only Cost-Plus- Fixed-Fee Task Orders as specified in the CLIN Descriptions prior to the Preamble, Sec. B.4, “Order Type Preference” and Sec. B.5.1, “Cost Reimbursement (CPFF). However, in Sec.

G.4(a), “Order Information”, second to last item states, “The estimated Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF)...” This is an introduction of a second contract type. In addition, Sec. G.5, “Types of Orders Under Indefinite Delivery Type Contracts” under paragraphs (a) through (e) specify the following as possible contract types for issued Task Orders: Firm-Fixed- Price, Firm Fixed Price (Level of Effort), Cost-Plus-Fixed- Fee (Completion) and Cost-Plus- Fixed-Fee (Level of Effort).

Also contained within the introduction paragraphs to Sec. L, “Instructions to Offerors”, it specifies CPFF Task Orders for labor and Cost Reimbursable for Travel. Please clarify if CPFF will be the only contract type utilized for the performance of this contract.

Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Contract Administration

Sec. G

Suggest adding an item showing Period of Performance (POP) information for the Base Period plus each Option Period.

Noted

Subcontractor Approvals

Sec. G.9

Sec. G.9, “Subcontractors” requires all subcontractors be approved under the release of each individual Task Order.

FAR 52.244-2, “Subcontracts” allows for the preapproval of subcontractors evaluated at the time of the original solicitation evaluation under paragraph (j). We suggest it will improve administrative efficiency to utilize this provision and allow the preapproval, at the IDIQ level, of the prime contractor’s teammates evaluated during the contract formation process.

Special

Requirements

Sec. H

In the sequential numbering shown under Sec. H, there is no provision indicated as H.2. Suggest renumbering this Sec. to include a provision for H.2 or show H.2 as “RESERVED”.

Special

Requirements

Sec. H.1

The second paragraph states, “The following clauses apply at the Order level, as applicable, depending upon the contract type of the Order, or as specifically referenced in the applicable Order:”

There are no clauses listed. If there are specific Order clauses needed, please add these to this provision. If no clauses are specified, suggest this second paragraph be deleted.

See H.l of the solicitation

Substitution of Team Members and Substitution of Personnel

Sec. H.3

This clause indicates a minimum of 30-day’s notice is required for any proposed personnel substitution. However, it is typical for individuals to only provide 2 week’s notice which will not meet the 30-day substitution requirement. Would the Government consider revising the notice requirement for any proposed substitution to 10-working days? In addition, would the Government consider a different notice requirement for team member staff versus prime contractor staff?

See revised section H.3

OCI

Sec. H.6

For the purposes of complying with Paragraph H.6, “Organizational Conflict of Interest”, will the Government provide a list of the currently known Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP) and Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS) which may be supported under the resultant contract?

Clauses

Sec. I

FAR clause 52.244-2, “Subcontracts” is referenced in Sec. G.9, but not included in the Sec. I list of incorporated FAR Clauses.

Suggest adding this FAR provision to the Sec. I list.

It would be appropriate for FAR provisions at FAR 52.232-20, “Limitation of Cost” and FAR 52.232-22, “Limitation of Funds” be included for a CPFF contract type. As such, we recommend these FAR provisions be added to the Sec. I list of provisions.

Sec. I.

Sec. I. FAR 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards is listed. Please confirm this contract will be covered by the Service Contract Act. If this is the case, please provide the applicable wage determination(s) or wage determination number(s)

This clause has been removed

Section I contains FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, and FAR 52.222- 56, Certification Regarding Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan. Given the place of performance is primarily in the National Capital Region and although occasional travel may be required to OCONUS locations, can the Government confirm FAR 52.222-56 applies to this procurement? If it does, will offerors be required to submit a compliance plan?

This is a required clause. See Far 22.1705

Sec. I, Full Text

The FAR clause 52.217-9(a) states, “The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 1; ...” There appears to be a missing word (day, week or month) missing after the number 1. Suggest the appropriate word be added to complete the fill-in information.

This clause filled in, see solicitation section I full text

Sec. I, Full Text

The DFAR clause at 252.209-7992, “Representation By Corporations Regarding An Unpaid Delinquent Tax Liability Or A Felony Conviction Under Any Federal Law—Fiscal Year 2015 Appropriations (Deviation 2015-OO0005) (Dec 2014)” is located under Sec. I. It seems like this provision is more appropriately placed under Sec. K, “Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors” rather than Sec. I. Suggest this provision be moved to Sec. K.

Proposal Page Limitations

Sec. L.1.8

The table in Sec. L.1.8 indicates the information required under Sec. K will include responses to FAR 52.252-1, “Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference”. Since FAR 52.252-1 incorporates the entire list of FAR and DFAR clauses shown, it is assumed the clauses requiring any type of “fill-in” data will be completed by the Offeror and the appropriate clauses with “fill-in” data will be shown under this non- specified Vol. containing the “Sec.

K/Representations and Certifications”.

Provide the Sec. K/Representations and Certifications in Volume 3

Please confirm if this assumption is correct. Is it the government’s intent that this information be separate from Vol. 1 and Vol. 2?

Proposal Page Limitations

Section L.1.8, Volume 1 – Technical, provides the following page limitations: Cover Page

– 2; Table of Contents – Unlimited; Factor 1 – 20; Factor 2 – 10 (excluding resumes); and Factor 3 – 3. This totals 35 pages (excluding resumes). However, the total shows 25 pages. Will the Government please confirm the total page count for Volume 1 - Technical as 35 pages (excluding resumes) in lieu of 25 pages?

See section L of the solicitation, page limitation

Factor 2 -

Sec. L.1.8 and L.2.1.2 and Sec.

M Factor 2 -

In the RFP, L.1.8 Page Limitations, can the government please explain what the 10 page Personnel Sec. (excluding resumes) should contain? Sec. L.2.1.2 does not clarify contents of that Sec. Sec. M Factor 2 – Personnel says the evaluation will focus on the offeror’s Staffing Plan to ensure adequate “support for the tasks stated in the PWS”, but the criteria (leadership, experience and qualifications) seem to be based on the content of the resumes. Sec. M also refers to a “separate personnel assessment” which is not explained. Will the government please clarify the requirements for the 10 page Personnel Sec. of Vol. 1?

Cover Letter

Sec. L.1.10

Sec. L.1.10 states a required cover letter “shall not exceed one page”, but the table in L.1.8 states that the cover letter may be 2 pages. The table also indicates the Cover Letter should go in both Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. Please clarify.

Cover Sheet

Sec. L.1.11

Sec. L.1.11 requires the offeror to provide a Cover Sheet outside of page limitations. Is this Cover Sheet to be included by the offeror in Vol. 1, Vol. 2 and the Vol. for “Section K/Representations and Certifications”?

Factor 4

Sec. L.2.1.4 and M.0

Factor 4 is the Cost Proposal, according to Sec. M.0. However, Sec. L.2.1.4 is also labeled Factor 4 (Past Performance). Will the Government please clarify the labeling of this item?

See section L and M of the solicitation for factors

Past Performance

Sec. L.1.8;

L.2.1.3 and L.2.1.4, and Sec.

M.0 Factor 3 and Factor 4

Sec. L.2.1.3 and Sec. L.2.1.4 specify information related to Past Performance Factor 3 and Past Performance Factor 4.

However, the table in Sec. L.1.8 does not show a Factor 4 - Past Performance within either volume. Is the intent for Past Performance be addressed under two factors? If both Factors 3 and 4 are required, should Factor 4 be added to the table under Sec. L.1.8? In which volume should the requirements for Factor 4 be included?

See solicitation section L and M for factors. Past Performance is one factor.

List

Sec. L.2.1.3 and L.2.1.4

In L.2.1.3, Factor 3 – Past Performance, a list of recent contracts is required. Is the list to include contracts beyond those provided as Past Performance in Sec. L.2.1.4? Or are the Past Performance items in L.2.1.3 the same as those in L.2.1.4?

See solicitation section L and M for factors. Past Performance is one factor.

161 Past Performance List

L.2.1.3 In L.2.1.3, Factor 3 – Past Performance, a list of recent contracts is required. Is this list outside the 3 page limit for Factor 4 – Past Performance?

See solicitatoin section L and M

Questionnaire

Sec. L.2.1.4 and Sec. M. Factor 3

– Past

Sec. L.2.1.4, “Factor 4 - Past Performance” includes a requirement to complete and submit a “Past Performance Questionnaire”, but no questionnaire has been provided as part of the Draft RFP. Will this specified document be provided in the Final RFP?

The questionnaire will be attached to the solicitation

Sec. L 2.1.2

Sec. L.2.1.2 states “The offeror shall provide a list of personnel made up of members of the management plan and Senior Subject Matter Experts (SME)s. As the Senior SMEs will be in a direct working relationship with Gov’t task leaders they are expected to manage assigned tasks. For each employee the offeror shall provide a resume and assurance that the employee will be available for one year unless unforeseen circumstances cause a need for a change.” Does “...members of the management plan...” refer to members of the management team? Does “For each employee...”

indicate resumes should be submitted for every prime contractor employee and team subcontractor employee proposed to work on a particular PWS?

Sections L and M have been extensively revised. Please review the revised sections.

Sec. L.2.1.2

There are no labor categories or associated descriptions provided in the DRFP. Will the Final RFP contain information on the labor categories with the education/experience levels required for the performance of the contract?

Yes

Sec. L.2.1.2

Several of the same or similar work areas cross multiple PWS areas. Will it be permissible for the offeror to provide 1 FTE to perform these common tasks across multiple Task Orders?

Sections L and M have been

Evaluation

Sec. M.0 Factor 2 – Personnel

Under Factor 2 Personnel, the statement, “This evaluation will exclude a separate “personnel” assessment to not provide a competitive advantage to the incumbent”, is unclear. Can the Government please provide clarification of the intent of this evaluation factor?

Sections L and M have been

Staffing Plan

M.0 Factor 2;

L.2.1.1 Factor 1

Sec. M says the Staffing Plan will be evaluated in Factor 2, but Sec. L.2.1.1 says a Staffing Plan is part of Factor

1. Please confirm the location of the Staffing Plan or if it will be required under both Factors 1 and 2.

Sections L and M have been

Factor 5 - Cost

Sec. L.2.2.1 and Sec. L.2.2.2

Both Sec. L.2.2.1 and Sec. 6L.2.2.2 require the submission of a completed Standard Form 33 (SF33) to include the contractor’s proposed cost for the project. However, the only place to display costs is Box 20, “Amount”. This Sec. of the SF33 is reserved for Government award data to be completed by the Government. Are offerors to use Box 20 to display their proposed costs or is it intended for the offerors to fill-in their proposed costs under the Sec. of the DRFP immediately following the SF33 and prior to the beginning of the Preamble Sec. (CLIN Descriptions)?

Sections L and M have been

Sec. L.2.2.1

Will the government expand Sec. L.2.2.1 to provide more details regarding the required cost information?

Suggest adding language providing the details needed to adequately evaluate each element of cost buildup (e.g., Direct Labor, Indirect Costs, Subcontractors, ODCs, Travel, Fee, Escalation, etc.). In addition, suggest a “Cost Template” be developed

No template will be provided and provided to accommodate the needed cost data. By including a prescribed “Cost Template” the government will add consistency to the inputs from the Offerors, which may aid in the efficiency of the evaluation process by the Government evaluators

170.

With respect to Volume 2, Cost, will the Government require the same level of cost detail from the proposed team subcontractors as they will require from the prime contractor? If yes, will this requirement be based on the projected dollar value of the specific team subcontractor?

Volume 2 should include the subcontractor projected cost, but the subcontractor will need to provide a complete cost proposal to the prime or directly to the Governemnt.

Yes, the requirement is based on the projected dollar value of the specific team subcontractor

171.

If the team subcontractors are required to provide the same full cost buildup data as the prime contractor and their cost data is proprietary to the team subcontractor, will the Government provide guidance and directions in the Final RFP for separate submission of the team subcontractor’s proprietary cost data? We suggest some type of “sealed package” submission might be appropriate.

Sections L and M have been extensively revised. Please review the revised sections.

172.

It is unclear in the Draft RFP exactly what is to be priced.

Will the offerors be required to separately price each Performance Work Statement and/or each Task?

Sections L and M have been

173.

Factors 4 and 5 and Sec.

L.2.2; Sec.

M.0 Factor 4

- Cost

Both the table under Sec. L.1.8 and Sec. L.2.2. indicate the Cost Proposal is Factor 5. The second paragraph in Sec.

M.0, “Evaluation Criteria (Sec. M)” and Sec. M “Factor 4

- Cost” indicate the “Cost Proposal” is Factor 4. Please clarify the correct Factor number for the “Cost Proposal”.

Sections L and M have been extensively revised. Please review the revised sections.

174.

Task Order Award

Sec. M.0

With respect to the first task order awarded as a result of this solicitation as noted in first paragraph of Section M, does the Government intend to include the services for all of the Performance Work Statements (Section J, Attachments 2-6) in the awarded first Task Order?

Sections L and M have been

175.

Factors

Sec. M, Factor 4

– Cost, Certified Cost and Pricing Data

Sec. M, “Certified Cost and Pricing Data” requires “Financial capability will be evaluated...” However, no evaluation criteria has been included. Suggest the details of the required financial data to be evaluated be specified in order to establish the types of information needed in order to drive consistency of the data provided by the Offerors. This uniformity of information should also aid in the efficiency of the evaluation process by the Government evaluators. In addition, the specific location of the financial information provided should also be indicated in the table under Sec. L.1.8.

Sections L and M have been extensively revised. Please review the revised sections.

176.

Factors

Sec. M, Factor 4

– Cost, Certified Cost and Pricing Data

In accordance with FAR 15.403-1 and as the Government is expected to receive adequate competition, why is certified cost and pricing data required? Did the Government intend for this to read “other than certified cost and pricing data?” If this is the case, it is recommended this language also be incorporated in L.2.2.1.

Sections L and M have been extensively revised. Please review the revised sections.

177.

Program Protection Plan and System Security Engineering

Att. 2, 3, and 4

PWS

Att. 2, Section 8.0 MDAP and MAIS Acquisition Document Development, Review and Coordination, Att.

3, 8.0 Program Protection / System Security Engineering and Att. 4, Section 1 System Assurance and Program Protection, 1.1 and 1.6 especially, refer to development and review of program protection plans as well as support for PPP review for SSE policy and guidance development. These requirements appear duplicative and in some cases unclear. Please clarify the requirements and confirm whether a single PWS will cover these areas.

Although the requirement appears to be duplicative, PWS 1 reflects review of the acquisition documents that we review which also includes the PPP, however, PWS 2 reflects the deeper role we have with policy, guidance and implementation of the Program Protection and the

PPP.

Added to the SEP in PWS 1.

Software Assurance, one of several protection mechanisms, is a key activity under Program Protection, the effort under EE will provide a robust set of softw

178.

Defense Acquisitio n Program Support

(DAPS)

methodol ogy

Att. 2 – PWS p.

7, Sec. 4.0, Technical Oversight and Program Support Activities, and Att. 3 - PWS p.

17, Sec. 9.1, Defense Acquisition Program Support (DAPS) Methodology

Both of the referenced Attachments 2 and 3 refer to the Defense Acquisition Program Support (DAPS) methodology currently being used on Program Support Assessments (PSA). Att. 3, Sec. 9.1 refers to the DAPS Methodology as an existing document of “approximately 450 pages” which “is updated annually”. The version currently available on the DASD(SE) website is dated 2009. We recommend the most current version of this document being used by DASD(SE) be provided as GFI and included in the Final RFP.

Both Attachments 2 and 3 support Director, Major Program Support (MPS) and while the areas of support are different, some tasks are done for both PWSs. Sean Brady researching

179.

Support Initiatives

Att. 2 - PWS, Page 4

1.3 SE and Program

Support Initiatives

Att. 2 states, “Expanding continuous engagement with Service acquisition efforts, by providing mentorship and support to program offices…” Can the government describe the scope of its expanding engagement by providing projected annual metrics and detail the contractor support required for this program?

The statement in this paragraph is simply a description of just one of DASD(SE)’s SE and Program support initiatives.

Other section in the PWS provide description of its continuous engagement

180.

Data Management

Att. 2 - PWS, Page 6

3.2 Data Management, Strategy, Process and Standards

Att. 2 states, “The contractor shall provide audits of the data and the adherence and effectiveness of the data management strategy as requested by the Government.”

Will the details and frequency of these audits be provided in the CDRLs included with the Final RFP?

The audits will be reported in contractor recommended, government approved formats as required an requested by the Government

181.

SME support

Att. 2 - PWS, Page 7

3.3 SME Support and

Product Development for all Tasks

Att. 2 states, “The contractor, for all tasks in this PWS, shall provide assessments, quality findings and actionable recommendations..” In the context of this PWS, can the Government further define “quality” and “actionable” as it relates to this requirement?

The QASP will establish broad quality expectations for the PWS The PWS statement does go on to state “…adhere to DAD(SE) format and be technically substantive with the proper focus on Systems Engineering

(SE) “

182.

SME support

Att. 2 - PWS, Page 7

3.3 SME Support and

Product Development for all Tasks

Att. 2 states, “Recommendations, proposed positions and advice shall consider and be communicated (verbal and written) for audiences at varying levels including deep technical experts..” Please define the meaning of “deep technical expert” in the context of this PWS?

The QASP will establish broad quality expectations for the PWS The PWS statement does go on to state “…adhere to DAD(SE) format and be technically substantive with the proper focus on Systems Engineering (SE) “Modify PWS to state” “specialists and experts with deep technical and engineering expertise

183.

Timeline

Att. 2 - PWS, Page 8 4.2 Special Studies, Independent Ad- Hoc, Focused Reviews & Assessments

Att. 2 states, “..may support Focused Review teams to provide information to Senior Decision makers (to include Congress)… The contractor shall deliver final Focused Review reports within 30 calendar days of the final site visit. Please clarification as to the content of the required reports, the expected quantity and the intended audience for each type of report?

per PWS – “Focused Reviews are similar to PSAs “the plan and reports for Focused Reviews will be similar to that of the PSAs but will be tailored for scope. The PWS states: “These reviews may or may not follow the DPAS methodology as required by the Government …” General expectations are stated: “the contractor shall delier products in accordance with organizational templates and processes, delivery timelines specified in the tsks in this PWS or as set b the Government task lead, and mission needs and organizational process changes.”

184.

DAB preps

8 4.5 Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) meetings

It is not clear why the DRMs and DPMs are described under 4.5 OIPT and not 4.6 DABs. Please explain why DRMs and DPMs are not discussed under 4.6 DABs?

OIPT, DRM and DPMs lead up to and support the DAB. The DAB itself – and its unique, associated support needs – was treated as standalone.

185.

On line systems

12 5.6 Domain Systems Engineering and

Att. 2 states, “The contractor shall support SEPM review assessments through the engagement and review of documentation acquired from the program office, knowledge online systems, …integrated data environments..” Please provide specific examples of these systems and data environments in order to obtain a clear understanding of the requirement?

Data and artifacts may be acquired from integrated data environments and online systems that the contractor will be given access to, such as direct access to PMO system such as Windchill and SharePoint, for example: Other systems include (but are not limited to) the Defense Management Information retrieval (DAMIR) System or the Acquisition Information repository (AIR)

186.

Doc review

Att. 2 - PWS, Page 12 5.6 Domain Systems Engineering and Program

Att. 2 states, “The contractor shall access, acquire, review and comment on approximately 100 or more technical documents per program,” Please provide the anticipated timeframe (e.g., 1 year, 2 years, life of contract, etc.) we should anticipate for these approximately 100 reviews?

Per Year PWS Modified to clarify. Added “per year”

187.

Security

Att. 3 - PWS in support of Director, Major Program Support, p. 20, Sec. 12, Project Management, Workflow Management and Process

The referenced PWS states “The contractor shall provide Activity Security Representative (ASR) support and ensure ASR processes and procedures are established/performed in compliance with organizational and AT&L activity security requirements.” Does this require an individual be designated as the AASR to support the government ASR under this PWS or does this simply refer to all team members supporting this PWS being required to follow DASD (SE’s) SOP regarding security?

This requirement has been removed as it is covered in the Front Office / PD DASD(SE) Support task and a reference to security has been added.to this and other PWSs

188.

SME/Person nel Experience

Att. 4 - PWS,

pg. 3

Att. 4 states the following requirement: “The contractor efforts under this PWS need to be able to support the broad range of system domain areas that are supported, managed, and overseen by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), e.g., ODASD(SE)/Major Program Support (MPS) Major Defense

PWS adjusted to clarify

Space & Missile Defense, Ships/Subs, Land Combat/Communications, Rotary Wing and C3ISR/Business systems). In addition, the policy, guidance, studies, recommendations, and other products that are developed under this TWS need to consider their applicability and practicality of use across the acquisition lifecycle.” In Section 1, is this requirement in support of just this Section or the entire PWS as appropriate?

189.

Engineerin g Resilient Systems pg

Section 2.1 states “This new PE will encompass two other related activities - Systems Engineering Research Center, and Defense Modeling and Simulation Office.” Will this PWS require support for the research center in addition to requirements found in Att. 5, Section 3?

PWS adjusted to clarify

190.

Tasks- weekly activity reports

Section 11, Para. 2 states “The contractor shall collect, consolidate and provide inputs for the weekly activity reports as required. The contractor shall provide value added inputs and ensure quality assurance of the reports. The contractor shall contribute to ASD(R&E) staff meetings with weekly reports on significant activities related to ASD(R&E) imperatives.” Please clarify how this activity relates to the requirement in Att. 6 Section 2.4 which states “The contractor shall collect and consolidate inputs for the weekly activity reports as required.

Provide value added inputs and quality assurance of the reports.

Collect and consolidate inputs, into a single report for Director, SE to approve and submit to the ASD(R&E). Contribute to ASD(R&E) staff meetings with weekly reports on significant activities related to ASD(R&E) imperatives. Weekly reports are submitted 50 weeks per year.”

ATTACHMENT 6 WILL NOT

BE a task on this contract

Support Tasks-security

Section 11, Para. 2 states “The contractor shall provide Activity Security Representative (ASR) support and ensure ASR processes and procedures are established are established/performed in compliance with organizational and AT&L activity security requirements.” Please clarify how this relates to the Att. 6 PWS requirement: 2.4 Support office security. Is there a requirement under this PWS for the AASR function to be staffed?

This section is now part of Administrative support and will not be competed under this IDIQ contract.

Data

Att. 4 - PWS, pg

Para. 11.1 appears to be an activity better grouped with Specialty Engineering, Section 4 as it is a technical activity vice a support function. Please consider moving this for consistency.

No.

192.

Communi ties of Practice

Att. 4 - PWS, pg

Para. 11.2 does not describe any specific work to be performed under this PWS. Please clarify the required work.

FTEs will be removed, but we can provide a count of seats per TASK ORDER for ON SITE.

193.

Work Location

Att. 4 - PWS pg

Section 11.4.3 Work Location indicates that up to 5 contractor personnel will be supported in government spaces. Please confirm if this number is correct. If not, please provide the right number and update in the final RFP release.

This is in error should be 43 seats for EE, 8 for PD/FO 50 for MPS 1 and 13 for MPS 2 BUT other vendor employees may have to work from off site.

194.

Joint Federated Assurance Center

Att. 5- PWS in support of the Principal Deputy and

ODASD(SE)

Front Office, p.

3, Sec. 1

Although the Joint Federated Assurance Center is referenced in this Sec., there is no further information provided in this Attachment 5-PWS. Is it the Government’s intent to include support for this organization? If yes, please detail the required activities.

PWS modified to cover this work.

195.

Joint Analysis Capability

Att. 5 - PWS in

Principal Deputy and

ODASD(SE)

Front Office, p.

3, Sec. 2 Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber

Will the work described in this Sec. support the Joint Acquisition Protection and Exploitation Cell (JAPEC) described in the recently released DoD Cyber Strategy? Is it the intent of the Government to provide sufficient SIPR and JWICS access at the Government site for all team staff members assigned to this PWS?

YES. And those working on this project will be required to hold a TS/SCI clearance (the PWS will be edited to show this requirement.

PWS edited to add security level requirements.

Security and Information Assurance (IA)

196.

Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security and

Att. 5 – p. 3, Sec. 2 Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security and

In accordance with Att. 5, Section 2, the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security and Information Assurance (IA) work associated with this effort does not begin until June 2016. As such, is a resume required for this position as part of the offeror’s proposal submission?

YES. And those working on this project will be required to hold a TS/SCI clearance (the PWS will be edited to show this requirement

197.

SERC

Principal Deputy and ODASD(SE) Front Office, p.

6, Sec. 3, Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) Administration

The Att. 5 PWS states, “The contractor shall review proposed changes to the SERC website and drafts of the SERC Annual Report…” and “DASD(SE) anticipates one significant change to the SERC website over the coming year.” Is this revision an annual or one-time requirement? Does DASD(SE) manage this website? If yes, please indicate where is it currently hosted?

"DASD(SE) does not manage this website. The review of the SERC's significant revision is an annual requirement."

198.

Continuing Process Improvement

Principal Deputy and

The Att. 5 PWS states “The contractor shall coordinate periodic presentations to communicate the results of improvement projects across DSE. Presentations may be formal or informal (Brown Bags) training sessions. The contractor should plan an average of 15 presentations per year.” Does DASD(SE) plan to limit presentations to the results of

The Lean Six Sigma Green Belt training is only one facet of training to be provided. Part of Systems Engineering outreach is to share new information with those in the DASD(SE) as such the OUTREACH effort in this PWS is to provide short training sessions (brown bag lunch sessions) to keep all in DASD(SE) up to date on new SE policies, practices and technologies.

(PWS has been modified to reflect this change)

ODASD(SE)

Front Office, p.

7, Sec. 4, Continuing Process Improvement new Green Belt/Improvement projects or is this training established as a result of previously completed Green Belt/CPI/Historical Improvement projects?

199.

Continuing Process Improveme nt

Principal Deputy and

ODASD(SE)

Front Office, p.

7, Sec. 4, Continuing Process

The Att. 5 PWS states, “The contractor shall conduct two Lean Six Sigma, Green Belt level training courses per year for government, IPA,TSA, and contractor personnel supporting DASD(SE).” Attachment 1 indicates one annual Green Belt training course. Please clarify the number of annual Green Belt courses will be provided. What is the expected number of DASD(SE) government/contractor staff to be trained in each course?

The number of classes will be dependent on maintaining a given percentage of LSS GB qualified personnel in DASD(SE). There ma be one or two per year depending on the requirement.

200.

Joint Congression al Report

Att. 5 – PWS p.

9, Sec. 5.11 Joint Congressional Report

Referencing the statement in Att. 5, Sec. 5.11, “The contractor shall assist in the preparation of the DASD(SE) portions of the Joint DT&E and DASD(SE) annual report to Congress on a time line to meet delivery no later than 31 March every year or as amended by applicable congressional reporting requirements.” We understand this report is no longer a joint report. We request clarification of this language to reflect the current practice.

This section has been revised to reflect the changes identified, but there will still exist a need to address future congressional, GAO, IG ect. Reporting requirements.

201.

DASD(S

E) Website

Principal Deputy and

Regarding, “The contractor shall work with ASD(R&E) webmasters to monitor and update the DASD(SE) website as required.” ASD(R&E) webmasters are not responsible for the DASD(SE) website; recommend the reference be updated to “monitor and suggest changes to DASD(SE) content on the ASD(R&E) website as required”.

PWS has been edited to make this requirement clear.

ODASD(SE)

Front Office, pp.

10-11, Sec. 6.1, DASD(SE)

Website and Intranet

202.

DASD(

SE)

Website

Principal Deputy and

ODASD(SE)

Front Office, pp.

10-11, Sec. 6.1, DASD(SE)

Website and Intranet

Regarding, “Convert publically releasable source material from actions and publications described in the PWS to form and format appropriate to post on the website”, to what PWS does this refer; products resulting from PWS 4 solely?

PWS adjusted to clarify.

203.

BPCh

Principal Deputy and

ODASD(SE)

Front Office, p.

11, Sec. 6.4, Best Practices Clearing House (BPCh)

We understand the operation of the BPCh managed by DAU was discontinued over 3 years ago. As such, we recommend deleting this entire requirement.

This requirement has been deleted from the

PWS

CrossTalk

Att. 5 - PWS in support of the

ODASD(SE) Front Office, p.

12, Sec. 6.5, Publications, Para. 4 and 5

Regarding, “DASD(SE) sponsors CrossTalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering. The contractor shall support the DASD(SE) lead by tracking the publication schedule deadlines, developing input for the kickoff issue, introducing the sponsors, drafting a column for the designated sponsor issue, and soliciting contributing articles for the journal.” And “The contractor shall prepare 5 CrossTalk ads…”, DASD(SE) discontinued its CrossTalk sponsorship in 2011. We recommend deleting this requirement.

PWS edited to remove Crosstalk references.

DASD(SE)

Webinars

ODASD(SE) Front Office, p.

13, Sec. 6.6, DASD(SE) Webinars

We understand DCO Connect and Defense Connect Online (DCO) are no longer in operation. Please provide the DoD web conferencing utility replacing this requirement. Is there a DoD teleconference functionality available for this requirement or will the offeror be expected to provide this functionality as a reimbursable cost?

DCO replaced with DCS – PWS edited to reflect the change

Awards

ODASD(SE) Front Office, p.

13, Sec. 6.7 SE

The referenced Att. 5 PWS states, “DASD(SE) sponsors the annual DoD Systems Engineering Top 5 Program Awards…”.

However, DASD(SE) discontinued the Top 5 Program Awards in 2013. As the result we

PWS has been edited to reflect changes in awards.

Excellence Awards

Government Furnished Space

Principal Deputy and ODASD(SE) Front Office, p.

14, Sec. 7.3, Work Location

The referenced PWS indicates the government will provide space for up to 5 contractor personnel. Will the offeror be free to determine where the work covered under this PWS will be performed, government or contractor site?

Will be adjusted to reflect CWRB minus the ADMIN seats. PWS edited to reflect current CWRB seats.

Workflow

Att. 5, Sec. 5.6 and Att. 6, Sec.

2.2

Both of the referenced attachments refer to workflow management, but under different titles, (5.6 Office Workflow Management and

2.2 Action Tasking and Task Support). Please

clarify within which PWS the Government expects this requirement to reside.

Workflow management is no longer a requirement for this PWS.

Continuing Process

PWS Engineering Enterprise

Does the Government intend to require Lean Six Sigma Training in support of the Engineering Enterprise PWS?

Lean Six Sigma training is covered under our Attachment 4. Not part of Dir EE support