TEAMS_C3BME__QA_Draft_RFP_(23_Nov_15).pdf

Solicitation: HQ0147-16-R-0004 MDA TEAMS C3BM Engineering

# RFP Section Remarks Question MDA Response

1 L-07 EPW Cost Roll-Up

EPW Cost Roll-Up Tab is missing rows for ODC CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002.

The Government has not allocated costs for ODC. However after contract award, the Government may add costs for ODC. The ODC CLINs listed in Section B are there as placeholders in the event that the Government elects to add ODC costs.

2 L-07 EPW Labor Category

EPW Labor Category Tab: Please consider replacing Contract Program Manager ERI benchmark position title in column B to “Program Manager” or “Project Manager” instead of “Project Controls Manager.” The project controls discipline is typically associated with only financial and cost control aspects of contract performance but does not typically include technical and programmatic execution or overall program management.

The Governments contends that the Projects Controls Manager aligns with the Contract Program Manager duties listed and described in Attachment L-10 Labor Competencies. The Government intends on making no changes to the ERI benchmark position title.

3 L-07 EPW Labor Category

EPW Labor Category Tab: Please consider increasing Engineer (Advanced) ERI experience level to 15 years to be consistent with ERI experience level of Analyst (Advanced).

The Government formulated the assumption that an Engineer (Advanced) would require a masters degree and 10 years of experience and the Analyst (Advanced) would require bachelors degree and 15 years of experience in order to complete the tasks listed and described in the Performance Works Statements.

Accordingly, the experience level for Engineer (advanced) will remain 10 years.

4 L-07 EPW Labor Category

EPW Labor Category Tab: Please consider increasing Engineer (Intermediate) ERI experience level to 10 years to be consistent with ERI experience level of Analyst (Intermediate).

The Government formulated the assumption that an Engineer (Intermediate) would require a bachelors degree and 5 years of experience and the Analyst (Intermediate) would require bachelors degree and 5 years of experience or greater than 10 years of relevant experience in lieu of the degree requirement in order to complete the tasks listed and described in the Performance Works Statements. Accordingly, the experience level for Engineer (intermediate) will remain 5 years.

5 L-10 Labor Competencies Labor Competencies

In the interests of not excluding personnel whose experience would be fully qualified for the labor competency but who may not hold the specified degree (Ref: Government Labor Competency Level Descriptions), please consider revising Engineer (Advanced) Education/Experience Requirements as follows: “MA/MS in Related Field with 10 years’ experience; or, BA/BS in related field with >15 years relevant experience required in lieu of MA/MS degree requirement.”

The Government does not intend to revise this competency. The degree requirements will remain.

# RFP Section Remarks Question MDA Response

6 L-10 Labor Competencies Labor Competencies

In the interests of not excluding personnel whose experience would be fully qualified for the labor competency but who may not hold the specified degree (Ref: Government labor competency Level Descriptions), please consider revising Engineer (Intermediate) Education/Experience Requirements as follows: "BA/BS in Related Field with 5 years' experience; or, >10 years relevant experience required in lieu of degree requirement."

The Government does not intend to revise this competency. The degree requirements will remain.

RFP Section A and I -

Page 2 and page 39.

Section A (Page 2) of the RFP identifies this solicitation as “issued on a full and open, unrestricted basis”. However, in Section I, Page 39, FAR clause 52.219-6: Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (NOV 2011) is invoked. In accordance with the clause terms, this clause applies only to--

(1) Contracts that have been totally set aside or reserved for small business concerns; and

(2) Orders set aside for small business concerns under multiple-award contracts as described in 8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F).*

Should FAR 52.219-6 be deleted from the solicitation, as this solicitation has been issued on a full and open, unrestricted basis?

The final RFP will omit FAR 52.219-6

8 RFP Section I -

52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data AUG 2011 52.215-11 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications

AUG 2011

This acquisition is competitive therefore certified cost or pricing data is not required. Please delete this provision.

The clauses will not be deleted because the clauses my be needed for modifications after contract award.

9 RFP Section I -

52.215-12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data OCT 2010 52.215-13 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications OCT 2010

This acquisition is competitive therefore certified cost or pricing data is not required. Please delete this provision.

The clauses will not be deleted because the clauses may be needed for modifications after contract award.

10 RFP Section I -

52.215-21 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data - Modifications OCT

This acquisition is competitive therefore certified cost or pricing data is not required. Please delete this provision.

The clause will not be deleted because the clause may be needed for modifications after contract award.

RFP Section I -

52.219-6 Notice Of Total Small Business Set- Aside NOV 2011

RFP Section A (p.2) states this acquisition is full & open unrestricted. Please delete this provision.

The final RFP will omit FAR clauses 52.219-6.

12 RFI Section I

DFAR 252.204-7012

Safeguarding of Unclassified Controlled Technical Information (AUG 2015). The DFARs reference on http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/ dfars/html/curre nt/252204.htm#252.204-7012 is displayed as: 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (SEP 2015).

Was it the Government’s intent to reference the SEP 2015 DFAR 252.204-7012 Safeguarding of Unclassified Controlled Technical Information? If not, please provide a copy of the DFAR 252.204-7012 Safeguarding of Unclassified Controlled Technical Information (AUG 2015) provision.

The final RFP will use DFARS 252.204-7012 (DEV) Oct 2015.

13 RFI Section I

DFAR 252.239-7009:

Representation of Use of Cloud Computing (AUG 2015). The DFARs reference on http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/ dfars/html/current/252239.htm#25 2.239-7009 displayed as: DFAR 252.239-7009: Representation of Use of Cloud computing (SEP 2015).

a) The link provided is associated with DFAR 252.239- 7009: Representation of Use of Cloud Computing (SEP 2015). Was the government's intent to reference AUG 2015 version? If so, then please provide a copy of the clause for our review.

b) Section K (pages 52-61) of the solicitation HQ0147-16- R- 0004 does not have the representation requirement as called out in this DFAR clause. Is this representation to be completed and submitted as an addendum to the Model contract at time of proposal submission or can it be provided prior to or at the time of contract award?

The final RFP will use DFARS 252.239-7009 Sep 2015. Also, Section K of the final RFP will include the applicable representation.

14 Section L L-13 L-4.20 Past Performance Due Date

Would the Government consider revising the proposal due date timeline such that all volumes are due on the same day? This would match the requirements of other TEAMS solicitations.

The final RFP will change the Past Performance Volume due date to be the same due date as all other proposal volumes.

15 Section L L -17 L-10.4 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment L-02)

“The offeror is responsible for, not later than 14 days prior to proposal due date, sending Attachment L-02 to respondents of their choice…” Would the Government clarify whether this is the due date of the Past Performance Volume (14 days prior) or the remaining volumes?

Submission of Attachment L-02 to respondents 14 days prior to proposal due date is not the same as the Past Performance Volume due date. Note that the Past Performance due date will be changed to the same due date as all other proposal volumes as per answer to question 14.

16 Section L L-23 to 24

L-14.3 Cost Reasonableness and Realism

Please delete reference to the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act (SCA) minimum fringe benefit cost of $4.27/hr as a benchmark for evaluation of reasonableness or realism. SCA does not apply to professional services.

The Government will not use a different benchmark. Fringe cost less than the $4.27 benchmark specified in Section L-14.3 is not compliant with the RFP and by default is unrealistic. However, $4.27 may not be realistic for every company or position. Section L-14.3 requires offerors to demonstrate the proposed fringe benefits cost is reasonable and realistic.

17 Section L L-23 to L-24

L-14.3 Cost Reasonableness and Realism

Would the Government consider evaluating the Offeror’s fringe benefits on its own merits based on the following criteria in Sec L-14.3 and not based on the Service Contract Act (SCA) minimum of $4.27/hr?

• Medical or hospital care;

• Pensions on retirement or death;

• Compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupational activity, or insurance to provide any of the foregoing;

• Unemployment benefits;

• Life insurance, disability and sickness insurance;

• Accident insurance;

• Vacation and holiday pay; and

• Other bona fide fringe benefits not otherwise required by federal, state, or local law to be provided by the contractor or subcontractor.

Same as #16 The Government will not use a different benchmark. Fringe cost less than the $4.27 benchmark specified in Section L-14.3 is not compliant with the RFP and by default is unrealistic. However, $4.27 may not be realistic for every company or position. Section L-14.3 requires offerors to demonstrate the proposed fringe benefits cost is reasonable and realistic.

18 Section L L-27 L-14.5 Pricing volume narrative (W

For the cost/price volume narrative, please revise L- 14.5(5) such that an Offeror may submit its Government-approved estimating system letter or audit report from either DCMA or DCAA in lieu of the entirety of the requirement at L-14.5(5).

Section L-14.5 (5) has been revised to allow offerors to submit their DCAA or DCMA letters instead of a "summary description."

19 Section L L-27

L-14.5 Pricing volume narrative (Word Doc), paragraph (6)

For the cost/price volume narrative, please revise L- 14.5(6) such that an Offeror may submit its Government-approved purchasing system letter or audit report from either DCMA or DCAA in lieu of the entirety of the requirement at L-14.5(6).

Section L-14.5(6) has been revised to allow offerors to submit their DCAA or DCMA letters instead of a "summary description."

20 Section L L-27 to 28

L-14.l5 Pricing Volume narrative (Word Doc), paragraph (7)

For the cost/price volume narrative, please revise L- 14.5(7) such that an Offeror may submit its Government-approved accounting system letter or audit report from either DCMA or DCAA in lieu of the entirety of the requirement at L-14.5(7).

Section L-14.5(7) has been revised to allow offerors to provide evidence of the review and approval of the offeror's accounting system by DCAA/DCMA instead of a "summary description."

21 Section L L-28

L-14.5 Pricing Volume narrative (Word Doc), paragraph (8)

For the cost/price volume narrative, please revise L- 14.5(8) such that an Offeror may submit evidence of its CAS Disclosure Statement having been determined to be adequate by either DCMA or DCAA in lieu of the entirety of the requirement at L-14.5(8).

Section L-14.5(8) has been revised such that it applies only to Prime offerors without an approved accounting system.

Section M

Paragraph M-8.0, Page 5-8

Provision Section M, Paragraph M- 8.0

Using an acceptable / unacceptable evaluation criteria to evaluate past performance does not afford the government the ability to discern the relative merit of an offerors past performance, rather creates a binary evaluation. This contract is extremely complex, and touches the MDA customer more directly than any other TEAMS contract.

Would the government consider using an evaluation approach similar to that used on Business Operations and BMDS CSM/CND (Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No confidence, Unknown confidence)?

Past Performance will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as described in Section M.

23 Attachment J-01 pg. 3, para 1.3; last sentence on page

Paragraph states C2BMC and BOA are provided through five capability areas and then lists a total of six capability areas: Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Planner, Situational Awareness, Global Engagement Manager (GEM), C2BMC Space Capabilities, BMD Communications Network, and Future Concepts. Are all six listed areas all referred to as capability areas?

Yes, the stated six areas are the capability areas. The PWS will be revised.

24 Attachment J-01 pg. 5; para 2; Data Rights

Paragraph states that tech data, computer software, algorithms and related models, to be produced or developed under this contract shall be delivered to the Government with unlimited data rights. Furthermore, the paragraph states TD and models are to be developed with only Government funds. How does the government view when upgrades are made to existing software or algorithms to which unlimited data rights do not currently exist?

While such scenarios are not anticipated under this contract, in such cases, data rights will be determined in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7013 and 7014.

25 Attachment J-01 pg. 6; para 3.1; Task Details

Paragraph states, "The contractor shall have Top Secret/ Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearance …" How many or what percentage of the personnel on the task are anticipated to need TS clearances?

100% of the personnel who must access the Integrated Discrimination and Joint Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) ground architecture information required or performance of this PWS will need TS/SCI.

26 Attachment J-01 pg. 6; para 3.1; Task Details

Paragraph states, "The contractor shall have Top Secret/ Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearance …" How many SCI billets are anticipated or will be made available?

The number of SCI billets will depend on the offeror’s approach to supporting the Integrated Discrimination and Joint Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) ground architecture effort.

27 Attachment J-01 pg. 6; para 3.1; Task Details Paragraph states, "The contractor shall have Top Secret/ Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearance …" Will SCI access be required on Day 1?

SCI Eligibility will be required by the end of the transition period and based upon stakeholder requirements. See paragraph 6.0 and 9.0 of the Performance Work Statement.

28 Attachment J-01 pg. 14; para 3.1.t.4

Contractor is required to produce and maintain working Defense Collaboration Services. Is this a service that already exists? If so, what programs/protocols are employed? What is the baseline service?

Yes, this is a DISA network. The DCS protocols include Chat and Instant Messaging. DISA’s network is the baseline service.

29 Attachment J-01 pg. 19; 3.1.x.5

Contractor is required to, "Submit C3BM custom developed software to the IC Directorate for evaluations such as source code analysis and risk mitigation." What is the source and requirements of this software?

This will be software applications or software utilities that are developed within MDA/BC or purchased software that has not previously been evaluated by the IC Directorate. The contractor will coordinate with the software developer and the IC Directorate in order to facilitate the process whereby the IC Directorate receives the software, performs an evaluation, and provides an assessment to perhaps be used by the developer to make cybersecurity improvements to the software. This requirement is not intended to indicate that the contractor will develop the software nor that the contractor will perform the evaluation.

30 Attachment J-01 pg. 22; Para 3.2

Specific reference was made for Performance Objective #1 for there to be TS/SCI personnel available. Does this requirement extend to PO #2 as well? There is no similar statement in the introductory paragraph.

Yes, PWS will be revised for the Final RFP.

31 Attachment J-01 pg. 29; para 4.2.a

Which products are considered "required products"?

Throughout Sections 3.1 and 3.2 there are numerous products listed as Key Products, but there is no specific reference to "Required Products".

The Key Products are the required products.

32 Attachment J-01 pg. 29; para 4.3 How often is the Cost Report required to be submitted?

CDRL specifies the delivery timing.

See Form 1423 Block 10, A002 Cost Report, the required submittal is monthly.

33 Attachment J-01 pg. 29; para 4.4 How often is the Travel Status Report required to be submitted?

CDRL specifies the delivery timing.

See Form 1423 Block 10, A002 Cost Report, the required submittal is monthly.

34 Attachment J-01 pg. 31; para 4.8

Paragraph states, "Although the criteria and acceptable quality levels of Small Business, Cost, Management, and Regulatory Compliance are not specifically included in the PWS; the overall performance assessment will include these criteria." What are the criteria and AQL the contractor will be judged against for SB Mgt and Regulatory Compliance? This data is needed if overall performance assessment will include measurements against these criteria and AQL's.

See J-02 Attachment, QASP, Table A2.1 - A2.5. The QASP establishes procedures of how well each technical, business, regulatory, and contractual requirement is met and the surveillance and acceptance criteria for each requirements. The PWS defines the requirements to be performed.

35 Attachment J-01 pg. 32; para 6 (second paragraph of section)

Paragraph states that (Clearance) eligibility is defined as the formal determination that an individual meets the Personnel Security requirements for Access to a specified type or types of classified information. Does issuance of a Interim clearance at the appropriate level meet the requirement for eligibility?

Yes

37 Attachment J-01 pg. 32; para 6 (third paragraph of section)

Paragraph references individuals that requires SCI access.

For SCI positions identified after contract start, will the contractor be able to nominate qualified personnel for SCI screening and authorization?

Yes

38 Attachment J-06 Detail Cost Report by CLIN

Example cost report contains eight specific labor categories on the "by CLIN" tab. Are the included labor categories for reference only, or are these the intended Labor Categories to be employed on Contract?

These are the intended Labor Categories

39 Attachment J-07 Example Monthly Status Report

The example MSR appears to reference information significantly greater than called out in the Section 4.2 (CDRL A001). For instance, the PWS states (in the MSR), "The contractor shall identify the product by title and the office that received those products during the reporting period. Delineate those that have been delivered by location, those that are planned to be delivered, and the estimated date of delivery." There is also a PWS callout to identify the status of ODC's. The example monthly report includes monthly assessments of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, Travel, etc. Please clarify the intent of the MSR.

The example Monthly Status Report (attachment J-07) is consistent with the requirements identified in Section 4.2 of the Performance Work Statement. Product delivery information should be included in the "Deliverables" section of the MSR (page 5). Currently, ODCs are not required for the performance of the contract nor identified in the MSR.

However, if ODCs are added at a later date, they shall be included in the MSR.

40 Solicitation pg. 21 of 64;Clause H-8 Public Release

According to clause, Contractor must submit requests for Public Release at least 60 days in advance of release date.

Clause goes on to state the COR will notify the contractor of the Agency's The final decision on release status. What is the timeframe associated with the government response?

There is no specific timeframe because the nature of the documents submitted for public release determines the various internal reviews required and time needed to conduct the reviews.

41 Solicitation pg. 26; Clause H-14; Personnel Qualifications

Requirements for Replacing Key Staff include: (1) replacement person’s qualifications are equal to or better than the qualifications of the person being replaced; or (2) the added person’s qualifications are equal to or better than the core capabilities of this contract. Who makes the determination of Rule (1) or Rule (2) above. We would like to note that Rule (1) has the possibility of leading to requirement creep in the position qualification in the event a highly qualified person is made available. Is there an order of precedence between rules 1 & 2?

There is no order of precedence between "rule" 1 or 2. The contractor must satisfy either rule 1 or 2 when proposing replacement personnel.

42 Solicitation pg. 30: Clause H-20; Sensitive Information Technology Work

Clause H-20 gives MDA, "The right to request removal of Contractor personnel, regardless of prior clearance or adjudication status, whose actions, while assigned to this contract, clearly conflict with the interests of the Government." Does this clause apply across the entire contract or only to positions performing Sensitive Information Technology Work?

The clause applies across the contract. Note paragraph 'd' of the clause that states: "MDA retains the right to request removal of Contractor personnel, regardless of prior clearance or adjudication status, whose actions, while assigned to this contract, clearly conflict with the interests of the Government.

The reason for removal will be fully documented in writing by the Contracting Officer. When and if such removal occurs, the Contractor will within 30 working days assign qualified personnel to any vacancy(is) thus created."

43 Solicitation pg. 34; Clause H-33; Program Synchronization

Para d of this clause references, "When associate contracts have been entered into or modified as described in this clause …" It appears this clause is in reference to the potential need for Associate Contractor Agreements.

Please clarify if this clause refers to actual associate contracts or is in reference to Associate Contractor Agreements.

Can MDA please provide the names of the contracts that are associated with C3 that will require those agreements?

This clause relates to the establishment of Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs). The Government does not currently anticipate a requirement for ACAs for this effort. However, should the Government determine at a later date that it requires joint participation in the accomplishment of the Government's requirements by the incumbent for this effort and another prime contractor, the PCO shall require the establishment of ACAs that facilitate the sharing information, data, technical knowledge, expertise, and/or resources essential to the integration of these efforts.

44 General General/RFP timeline

Period of performance start date is clearly defined as 28 August 2016, and initial projections out of the MDA TEAMS Program Office indicated the C3BM RFP were for a January RFP release.

Is there are reason for this adjustment to the Government schedule?

- Due to the scope and scale the various TEAMS programs, the adjustment of the RFP timelines could have an adverse impact on the ability to encourage competition.

Will the Government consider reverting back to schedule and projections that have been communicated over the past year?

While the Government understands industry's concerns regarding the revised schedule for this effort, the complexities of developing and releasing 31 RFPs have forced us to realign release dates for some efforts to alleviate resource constraints as well as impacts to other industry sectors. The schedule for this effort will not be revised at this time

45 Section M

L-12.2 Subfactor TS2: Technical Staffing Approach

M-9.2

Key personnel for this requirement are the Contract Program Manager, Technical Lead, and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), if so proposed.

- The number and specialties of the SMEs appear to be at the discretion of the Contractor, per the details provided in Sections L&M. Further, "If so proposed" leaves open the door to proposing no/zero SMEs that would be a part of the Key Personnel plan.

Will the Government provide further guidance to the minimum number of SMEs that would be viewed as acceptable? If there are particular program elements that MDA feels strongly about having a SME assigned/allocated due to the criticality of that component, would the Government disclose that information?

From an evaluation standpoint, it is unclear how the assignment of SMEs (both in terms of quantity and work area) being proposed will be evaluated. Will the Government provide further clarification on this evaluation factor, and/or detail the SMEs that are required for the program in terms of experience, knowledge, system expertise, etc.?

The number and use of SME's is optional and depends upon the offeror’s approach.