BMDS_CSM_CND_Responses_to_Industry_Questions.pdf

TEAMS BMDS CSM CND / Industry Questions Responses 28 Nov 2018

Amendment 0002

Subject Location Reference Question Response 1 RFP Industry Questions, Amendment 001, Question 11 and Section L Amendment001, and Clause H-14

Yes, it is the Government's intent that all advanced labor category positions are key personnel. Amendment 0001 has revised Clause H-14 of the solicitation

Will the change to the language in L-11.2 in today’s amendment would preclude a bidder from proposing hours in Advanced LCAT(s) and for non-key subject matter experts as well, even when those personnel may be needed by MDA to fulfill dynamic or specific short-term needs created in a dynamic cyber security environment? Will the government allow the use of Advanced LCAT(s) for non-key personnel who are not considered Technical Leads?

The proposal PWS contains the Government's requirements, to include PWS paragraph 9.b. The Attachments L-10 and J-13 describe Advance LCAT(s) with the capability of leading and executing. If the Advanced LCAT cannot lead, then perhaps look at the Intermediate LCAT descriptions. The Government will assess the Offeror's submission as reflected in Sections L and M.

2 RFP Industry Questions, Amendment 001, Question

Per DoD 8570.01-M, MDA, identify all IA function requirements to be performed by the contractor in their statement of work/contract. PWS PO#2 Cyberspace Management Office has only IASAE Level III functions identified. The IA Workforce category IASAE Level III equates to an Advanced Engineer within the TEAMS labor categories.

When it comes to real-world execution, DOD 8570.01-M allows for a phase-in approach to achieving the certification requirements for each position, with approval from the sponsoring organization. We respectfully request a modification to the solicitation to allow for personnel to be phased-in to the advanced LCAT(s) during the first 6 months of staffing against each LCAT(s), rather than naming all of these advanced positions as Key Personnel who must meet all of the advanced LCAT(s) requirements on Day 1.

The DoD 8570.01-M 6 month phase-in is allowed for Government staffing. As referenced in Attachment L-10 and J-13, DoD 8570.01-M paragraph C2.3.9 reflects the baseline IA certification is to be in place prior to the contractor being engaged. No change will be made to the solicitation.

3 RFP Industry Questions, Amendment 001, Question 12, Amendment 001 L-1, L-

Volume VII-Technical, Tab 1: Technical Approach has been changed from 25 pages to 40 pages in Amendment 0001

We also noted, as a response to Question 12 in the Q&A, that the page limit for Volume VII, Tab 1 was to increase from 25 to 40 pages. Can we assume Table L-1 in section L-4.4 that reflects that the increase in page limit was to Volume VIII (Management) instead was in error?

The current Section L posted on FedBizOps on 23 Nov 2016 correctly reflects the page increase from 25 to 40 to Volume VII (Technical) Tab 1: Technical Approach. The Volume VIII (Management) Tab 1: Management Approach remains unchanged at 25 pages.

4 RFP Industry Questions, 3&4, Amendment 001

The RFP response date will be 30 November, 2016. The Government will consider questions from industry up until 14 November. This will allow for a response to be staffed and

Request an extension to the Amendment 001 Proposal due date of Dec. 1, 12pm CST, to allow for response time for incorporation of changes set forth by Amendment 001

The RFP response date will be 06 December, 2016 @ 10

AM CST.

5 Section M M-7.4 Table 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and subparagraphs 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5 & 3.1.6

Issue: It appears to reference PWS paragraphs from the last Draft RFP where only two performance objectives were listed. It requires traceability from Evaluation Scenario to PWS requirements. This traceability limits it to PO # 1.

Question: Is this an error, or intentional, as it is a significant impact?

Section M 7.4 has been corrected. Traceability should be from Evaluation Scenario to PWS Performance Objective #3 requirements.

6 Section M M-7.5 Table 3.2.1 and subparagraphs 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4 & 3.2.5 Issue: It appears to reference PWS paragraphs from the last Draft RFP where only two performance objectives were listed. It requires traceability from Evaluation Scenario to PWS requirements. This traceability limits it to PO # 2 and ignores CND-A requirements from the POW.

Question: Is this an error, or intentional, as it is a significant impact?.

Section M 7.5 has been corrected. Traceability should be from Evaluation Scenario to PWS Performance Objective #5 requirements.